Marsha and all --
Does multiculturalism exist? Where? If it exists within this little
postal battleground, isn't there a variation for each participant? And
won't they dissipate when the thread ends? Then, where will these
patterns exist? Maybe this thread is
interesting after all. Since I do not have an opinion about the
rightness or wrongness of "multiculturalism", what is my part?
Anybody like a cup of Milk Thistle tea?
Multiculturalism is a topic for social polemics rather than philosophy, but
it is clear that Americans over the last half-century have resigned
themselves to an egalitarian value system that recognizes all
culturally-induced behaviors as acceptable if not superior to our own
cultural heritage. Having written on this aspect of cultural values, I
thought a few pertinent quotes might be useful in explaining how Platt and
others view this issue.
As a retired Supreme Court justice, Robert Bork was particularly concerned
with the teaching of this ideology in the public schools. Here is how he
summed up the phenonemon in his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah":
"A curriculum designed to foster understanding of other cultures would study
those cultures. Multiculturalism does not. Courses are not offered on the
cultures of China or India or Brazil or Nigeria, nor does the curriculum
require the study of languages without which foreign cultures cannot be
fully understood. Instead the focus is on groups that, allegedly, have been
subjected to oppression by American and Western civilization - homosexuals,
American Indians, blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on. The message is not
that all cultures are to be respected, but that European culture, which
created the dominance of white males, is uniquely evil. Multiculturalism
follows the agenda of modern liberalism, and it comes straight from the
Sixties counterculture. But now, in American education, it is the dominant
culture."
As to how the U.S. fell into this moral lethargy, Judge Bork quoted Carol
Iannone, NYU literature professor:
"Quite simply, it happened because America lost its grasp of its own
historic character, and embraced 'diversity' as a national goal. In the
name of equality and nondiscrimination we invited mass immigration from
every part of the globe, and made no demands on the newcomers to become
Americans. In fact, we gave up our American core, adopted multiculturalism
and declared all cultures equal. We invited the new groups to celebrate
themselves while we cravenly permitted libelous denigration of our own past.
Like fools we prated that diversity is our strength, when common sense and
all of history tell us that strength comes from unity.
"Absolute nondiscrimination meant we no longer enforced standards, made
judgments, distinguished between good and evil, friend and foe. We grew
lazy, stupid and careless - about our borders, about national security, even
about previous terrorist attacks against us. We worried over our 'hate
crimes' and our 'racial profiling,' while men resided in our midst who
seethed with murderous fury even against our children and plotted our
destruction. Now we have a fifth column, fear further assaults and labor
under a draconian security regime that is changing the nature of our lives."
Bork goes on to say ...
"Since the 1960s, America - from her government to her schools and even to
her churches - has steadily fallen away from the Judeo-Christian values that
previously illuminated and gave life and strength to the nation's
institutions. This is equivalent to turning out the country's lights: And
when you turn out the lights, everything looks the same color in the dark -
that's multiculturalism.
"Moreover, no longer guided by universal standards of right and wrong,
Americans have had nothing more reliable than their own feelings to guide
them in the moral realm. And as modern marketing well knows, when people
are operating primarily on the basis of feelings and emotions, they're wide
open to every sort of manipulation imaginable."
The desire to retain the values and traditions of one's sovereign nation is
not racial bigotry or xenophobia. It is in fact the moral rockbed of
civilized society, as I tried to show in my archived essay "Empires Also
Die" which is based on the fall of the Roman Empire:
"History has shown that among all powerful peoples, when the creation of
real wealth and true economic power is neglected, when the belief that the
status quo is pre-ordained and will last forever, when what happens today
becomes more important than what will be the situation tomorrow and next
year, when enjoying life becomes more important than preserving values such
as individual freedom, honesty, fairness and integrity, when the electors
cast their votes for celebrity and charisma rather than envisioned
leadership, when those in power find that they have to deceive and defraud
the man on the street in order to protect their own personal wealth and
power -- when all that happens, the peak has been passed and the end is not
far off.
"In his book, Why Civilizations Self-Destruct, Elmer Pendell surveyed
historians' theories and concluded that a civilization arises when natural
selection produces a people of above-average intelligence. As the founders
conquer natural culling forces, those who would have been removed from the
population due to their lesser abilities survive and produce more children
than the more intelligent founders. Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin
and author of Hereditary Genius, first noted that 'men of eminence' have
fewer children than the average. Eventually the average intelligence level
falls below that of the original population.
"Dr. Pendell suggests another factor in the collapse of civilizations -- the
gradual adulteration of ethnically homogeneous founding populations through
losses in wars and, in ancient times, the taking of slaves. Tenny Frank, in
his book History of Rome, wrote: 'The original peoples were wasted in wars
and scattered in migrations and colonization and their places were filled
chiefly with Eastern Slaves.' The modern analogue of slavery is
immigration. When an empire nation opens its borders to immigrants of
diverse cultures and backgrounds, it stands to lose or gain, depending on
the talents and working skills of its new citizens and their willingness to
assimilate. Lacking these attributes, the 'melting pot' simile falters,
allowing a disenfranchised class to emerge that not only must be sustained
by the state but that represents a potential source of dissent within its
ranks."
I hope these statements help to clarify the meaning and significance of
multiculturalism as it affects Western Society.
Thanks for the opportunity.
Regards,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
