Ham says that a nation can survive and prosper only if its "founding values,
language, social mores, and cultural heritage" are "preserved" but he also
advocates individualism, which is "opposed to any tradition, religion, or other
form of external moral standard being used to limit an individual's choice of
actions". Based on Ham's descriptions the most obvious conclusion is that
individualism destroys nations precisely because it undermines tradition and
moral standards. It's disturbing that Ham does not see how these positions
contradict each other. I mean, this sort of logical blunder is not exactly a
subtle one. There also seemed to be some confusion and conflation of
multiculturalism and collectivism, which are more or less logically
incompatible too. The main problem, however, is that he did not answer the
question as to WHY multiculturalism is a threat. Ham simply asserted that
national survival depends on preserving its heritage and values. But specific
what values are threatened? How are they threatened? Or isn't it true that the
only thing threatened would be some kind of cultural monopoly, a monolithic
society where dissent is treated like a crime and "freedom" is a meaningless
word. Historically speaking, the quest for that kind of purity always leads to
tyranny and bloodshed.If America's traditional values and cultural heritage are
so essential to its survival and prosperity then why are the most diverse
cities also the most prosperous, creative, dynamic places in the country? Big
coastal cities like San Francisco and New York have more immigrants and more
traffic with other cultures and this has only enhanced their survival and
prosperity. What's threatened by even the most intense versions of
multicultural situations? They could do some serious damage to the belief that
there is something inherently wrong with foreigners and foreign values, but
that's a belief that ought to be wrecked. I mean, purity is good if you're
mixing chemicals or making dinner but cultural purity? That's not possible, but
why would we want it even if it were? Why is it assumed that the alternative
cultural values are all some kind of poison, some kind of pollution? Or is it
more like the fear of diluting the dominance and supremacy of "white" culture?
I mean, it seems to be emotionally motivated because I just don't see any kind
of rational case against multiculturalism here.
_________________________________________________________________
It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008
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/
