When the concept of “multiculturalism” was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant “more pavilions at Folkfest”.
French philosopher, Pascal Bruckner;
Today we combine two concepts of liberty: one has its origins in the 18th century, founded on emancipation from tradition and authority. The other, originating in anti-imperialist anthropology, is based on the equal dignity of cultures which could not be evaluated merely on the basis of our criteria. Relativism demands that we see our values simply as the beliefs of the particular tribe we call the West. Multiculturalism is the result of this process. Born in Canada in 1971, it’s principle aim is to assure the peaceful cohabitation of populations of different ethnic or racial origins on the same territory. In multiculturalism, every human group has a singularity and legitimacy that form the basis of its right to exist, conditioning its interaction with others. The criteria of just and unjust, criminal and barbarian, disappear before the absolute criterion of respect for difference. There is no longer any eternal truth: the belief in this stems from naïve ethnocentrism.
Anyone with a mind to contend timidly that liberty is indivisible, that the life of a human being has the same value everywhere, that amputating a thief’s hand or stoning an adulteress is intolerable everywhere, is duly arraigned in the name of the necessary equality of cultures. As a result, we can turn a blind eye to how others live and suffer once they’ve been parked in the ghetto of their particularity. Enthusing about their inviolable differentness alleviates us from having to worry about their condition. However it is one thing to recognise the convictions and rites of fellow citizens of different origins, and another to give one’s blessing to hostile insular communities that throw up ramparts between themselves and the rest of society. How can we bless this difference if it excludes humanity instead of welcoming it? This is the paradox of multiculturalism: it accords the same treatment to all communities, but not to the people who form them, denying them the freedom to liberate themselves from their own traditions. Instead: recognition of the group, oppression of the individual. The past is valued over the wills of those who wish to leave custom and the family behind and – for example – love in the manner they see fit.
A long, and not uncomplicated piece. Because of its importance, that’s the last post here for the next few hours.
And after you’ve read and digested it, I have a question for the relativists who believe in the “equal dignity” of all human societies, who would argue that the culture of the Cree was the equal of ancient Greece, that tribal societies of the southern hemisphere still living with leprosy, slave traders and cannibalism are the unimpeachable equivalent of those built by Israelis, the British, the Swiss.
If we who live in “privilaged” western liberal democracies have no moral authority to pass judgement upon the human experiments of others and pronounce them inferior to our own – then on what basis do you defend recognition of the “refugee” seeking safe harbour on our shores?
I agree with Abhishek. Change has to come from within, not without. It will not last, otherwise.
Jared,
” Canada has abandoned every value that our forefathers held. some people call this progress!! Which is laughable.”
This is the same great Canada whose forefathers were agianst immigration by any people who were not white, or indeed, from certain parts of the Christian world. The same forefathers who enjoyed propagating the myth of the true north. The forefathers who introduced the European style anti-Americanism that so many detest on this board. The forefathers who believed they combined British bearing with American hardiness – The British were too wimpy, the Americans too uncultured? The list continues. Granatstein, I believe, wrote an interesting book on the impact of multiculturalism on myths of Canada that are aimed at glorifying the British connection.
” Canada is no longer great!! We could not even defend ourselves against anyone, unable to even fight our way out of this wet paper bag!”
When was Canada great? Certainly not prior to the Second World War, when the country was akin to what we now know as third world countries. Perhaps after World War 2? Diefenbaker and Mulroney periods I m assuming.
We could hardly defend ourselves prior ot the outbreak of World War 2. Remember Roosevelets speech at Queens promising that America would defend Canada? And even world war 2 saw Canada succeed not on the basis of tactics or technology, but on the sheer bravery of ordinary Canadians who took up arms. Marc Milners book on the Royal Canadian Navy clears up many a myth.
“The Stems from we have no coherent culture, no fabric to unite us like we once had, no common values!!’
We never did. Since the advent of Canada there has been a Quebec.
Its worth noting that the progress of Judeo Christian civilizations came precisely because a firm line was drawn between religion and politics.
The Judeo Christain civilization is not all at the top. The former Soviet Union is also a contribution of Judeo Christian civilization. Imperialism didnt come about because other civilizations realised the superiority of the Judeo Christians – in fact some Empires were far more refined and sophisticated and, indeed richer. Imperialism boils down to an efficiency in making money that outstripped others, and, more crucially, the ability to create technology that could be used to subjugate and kill others. Imperialsim came from the barrell of the gun. No one bowed down noting the inherent superiority of the civiliztion. They lost in battle. Judeo Christians were better at creating killing machines. Good for you.
“The CULTURE of Western civilization is superior to all other known cultures.”
Yes. Thats why the Taj Mahal was built in Versailles. Taj Mahal is after all, an indicator of culture. Cultures are too subjective to be objective. How do you decide which culture is better? On the basis of what you recognise and identify with? Culture includes a lot more than political systems and religious tranditions.
“Or we will take a step “backward” to pre-1960 values,”
Yes, when the color fo your skin actually did make a difference. What are pre1960s values? Can you give me a list. And please, be liberal. Include everything, no matter how wrong it may now seem.
At least you admit you re a political activist.
ET
“so, if a society decides that all its citizens who are Jews, gypsies etc, must be exterminated in gas chambers, then, you think the world should stand by and watch – because that society can claim that it is their basic right of freedom of religion and expression?’
I will grant that there are stages when intervention are neccessary. When a state actively tries to kill those it is charged with protecting, it is time to intervene.
However, tinkering with minor religious practices such as sati, which incidentally isnt an exclusively Hindu practice – it was practiced in most of the Ancient world – I believe Dido of Carthage also immolated herself in such a way. The British banned Sati, a wonderful move, but it rears its ugly head every now and then and it is hard to guage whether a woman is doing it of her own free will, or under the influence of drugs/threats.
Banning it means shutting down any debate about it since no one can argue in its favor. Hence it continues, albeit exceptionally rarely, because Hindus have not had a chance to wipe it out. An open debate might have allowed for that, since I think its apparent that Hindus dont in fact feel supportive of the idea of jumping on to a pyre when their husband dies. However, arbitrarily banning it merely strengthens the religious and traditionalists hand, because they then argue that while Hindus support them, a secular government does. Hindus dont in fact support them and when that becomes clear, they will have no basis. Instead it continues as it does. Of course sati is extremely rare – in fact if one were to look at the stats, I think one would find that a similar percentage of women commit suicide after their husbands death as do commit sati. The latter is more spectacular.
There is a difference between intervening in a genoicide and strengthening hardline religious folks hands by intervening in small religous practices, thereby giving those practices symbolic importance, and extenuating the life of a practice that might otherwise have fallen victim to the most powerful weapon of all – argument.
Kate says…”are the unimpeachable equivalent of those built by Israelis, the British, the Swiss.”
O RLY?
“In a surprising twist, Israel has entered Canada’s list of top-10 source countries for refugees”
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/175544
Fabulous piece
Abhishek;
I must say I agree entirely with your
” Change has to come from within; or else it will not last.”
That is unless I’m taking you out of context. Assuming the “outsiders” in your last sentence refers to westerners, I think your
” So it is right to judge social customs such as stoning, lashing and sati, act upon them and treat their victims as minorities within minorities. ”
is a fine illustration of the actual damage western Multi-Culturalism can help to perpetuate. By that I’m refering to the habit of American Multi-Culturalists of confering “extra” or “special” status to a minority in an effort to be accomidating. The result being that Muslim immigrants to western countries who wish to retain a devout religious tradition have zero encouragment, and little or no cogent or salient assistance, to intigrate succesfully with the culture of their new location.
I think Mr. Bruckner is correct in his assesment of Ayaan’s ideas. I just bought “The Caged Virgin” and “Infidel” lastnight and I’m halfway through the former title just now. When Garton Ash critiques her as “simplistic” I cannot disagree more !! Although she may appear that way to some, I attribute that perception to her extraordinary ability to communicate so well, her ability to make a complicated discussion “plain even to the meanest understanding” … yes I can be very thick-headed hehe.
Anyone who hasen’t yet seen video of Ayaan addressing the AEI on her latest book may find a link at hotair.com, I strongly recommend watching it.
hotair.com/archives/2007/02/17/video-ayaan-hirsi-ali-at-aei/
Bob: Did you actually read the article? The crux of the article is the likelihood that the immigration system is being abused by “economic migrants”.
For example, from the article:
“The real story here isn’t about Israel but the exploitation of Canada’s refugee system,” Fogel said.
“A lot of people have used that opportunity to get out of the Soviet Union for economic opportunities elsewhere and they’re in transit in Israel to come to places like Canada,”
Other than a few unfortunate orphans, who are unable to have knowledge of their biological parents, the confusion lies between roots and nation. Race has very little to do with it, but rather heritage is the determining factor. I am British by birth, even though one side of my family comes from India. Everyone or their family is from somewhere which are ones’ roots. The nation of Canada welcomes people from all different roots as long as they truly believe themselves to be Canadian. Canada can never be a nation until we ask ourselves to be proud to be Canadian and accept the founding societal norms.
ah Kate.
Kate Kate Kate.
you’ve outdone yourself on this one.
love that punch line ‘one what basis …’
dig dig dig, post post post !!!!
An Egyptian court has sentenced a blogger to four years’ prison for insulting Islam and the president
Now there’s a guy who should be considered for refugee status and Peter Mansbridge should make a big deal out of it on the CBC.
Read the whole thing
tinyurl.com/38c854
Bruckner got it right in many respects, but on one basic issue he got is dead wrong.
He says that “In multiculturalism, every human group has a singularity and a legitimacy that form the basis of its right to exist…”
What he should have said was ‘In multiculturalism every human group EXCEPT people of white european descent has a singularity and a legitimacy that form the basis of its right to exist…’
Multiculturalists seem to view that group as the root of all evil.
The ultimate purpose of ‘multiculturalism’, is to turn anglo-saxons into a minority group! (Ever met any white anglo-saxon ‘refugees’?)
Jeremiah exemplifies the thinking that brought us multiculturalism. Ha Ha, he is full of white man’s guilt. Oh, those mean empires! As if there were no empires other than European, you know, like..oh, well, emmm … let me think…Chinese? Aztec? Arab? Persian? Egyptian? Need I go on ?
Jeremiah, I am not ashamed of Western civilization at all. I pee in your general direction.
“The problem with multiculturalism is that the new immigrants believe to be Canadian second and homeland first.—etc”
I know Cal and your not Cal, but I don’t disagree with what you have written.
Well, you’re talking specifically about Canada.
We haven’t had to wrestle with the “two solitudes,” but fallout from multiculturalism is pretty much the same down here.
I think one of the reasons that arguments for it fall on deaf ears is that we’ve all actually had to live with it for a while.
Once you have had to live with the turkey on the porch next door for a couple of decades, all the arguments that are used to persuade you that multiculturalism has great value begin to fall on deaf ears.
It is a lot harder to be persuasive through intellectualiztion when you have been forced to be nose-to-nose with the damned thing.
I think multiculturalism is sort of like Marxism, in that it is an idea that was once very persuasive, but has had its day as practical experience has see nothing but trouble for everyone involved.
At least conservatives have tasted it and rejected it. I now see multiculturalism as just one more idea that diminshes the power of Americans and Canadians to have decision making over their own lives.
No one will ever be able to be very convincing about it again.
… it accords the same treatment to all communities, but not to the people who form them, denying them the freedom to liberate themselves from their own traditions…..
…what about the Canadian community ? What of our traditions ?
From teh article:
“accompanied … by the saccarine cajolery of the rich who explain to the poor that money doesn’t guarantee happiness.”
I just loved this phrase. I’ve used it myself before to pooh-pooh the champaign socialists.
Trudeau adopted multiculturalism as a concept that would make quebecers happy in Canada.
Multiculturalism is a political concept rather than a entity, a being, a thing because multicult means nullility, there is no culture, whatever you want is culture says multiculture.
Sheeplike canadians should stop following political correct and think what is in the best interest of Canada. We don’t need more people. World scientists say our world has to reduce the number of people. Canadians think by flooding people in we are helping the world. We are only taking our country down.
Vancouver, one of the nicer cities in the world to live in is rapidly entering the point of Too damn many people, we khaven’t even got water mains or la sewage system to service them. not enough hospitals, policemen, jails, schools or universities. Only lunatics like the pres of one of the banks recently quoted, saying we have to compete for talent by immigration, and then we bring in people illiterate in their own land to help us compete in a technical world.
There is one answer. Stop all immigration escept to people who can speak english or french, have money or a profession. Let all others reform their own country.
The usual excuse is “We all came from immigrants”. So. Did not every nation or country in the western hemisphere come from immigrants? Why aren’t they taking immigrants? Why is Canad the biggest immigrant taker in the world per capita? Because the politicians have found it is expedient. Vancouver is now 30% chinese. When is enough? Now we are busy immigrating muslims who outbreed us, Smart..
“Immigrants built this country” So. Do we abandon policies best for our country just because of some event in the past.
Nobody says “Stop immigration” and “Stop the policy of multiculturalism” That is what all the braying asses should be saying, but in sheeplike canada, not a peep.
Multiculturalism in Canada–most certainly a most calculated and cynical tactic of the Liberal Party–has been used to discredit and neutralize both the British and Christian roots of this country. And, on what grounds have the majority of immigrants come here? On the basis of the (Judeo-)Christian understanding of the inestimable value of each individual and Magna Carta, the very foundation of our democracy. (British, not post- Enlightenment French concepts, right?)
So, this week, though the Opening Exercises at my school–which has a Board book of significant days–have emphasized Black History Month and Chinese New Year, there was no mention at all of Ash Wednesday or Lent. I have no problem with Black History Month or Chinese New Year, per se. But, as a Canadian whose British, Christian forbears–here in the 1700s–had a great deal to do with the democritization and prosperity of this country, I do have a very serious problem with the demonization and discrediting of this culture. (Check out your local school’s propagand . . . whoops, I mean history texts.)
So, I wrote a script for Ash Wednesday and Lent. It was read over the PA, but administration has made no acknowledgment of my concerns on this issue.
Welcome to Canada: forget “land of the beaver”. How about land of the brow-beaten?
sourdust–
That infant mortality thing is getting old. I’ve posted this before, but let me try again.
America’s infant mortality rate is higher because they count babies who are born at 23 and 24 weeks gestation who then die as infant mortality. Other countries count them as miscarriages. They don’t even try to save them. So you’re comparing apples to oranges. Many countries use the cut-off of even 28 weeks for a baby to be counted as an “infant”, thus deflating their infant mortality figures. America actually counts the true number of babies who are born alive and then die, no matter what the gestational age. Thus they seem to have super high infant mortality, when in actual fact they have a higher survival rate of very premature babies than any country in the world.
Witness the 21-week-old baby who was born in the States and is set to go home soon. In most countries, they don’t even try to save until 25 or 26 weeks.
It’s similar to America’s crime rates–they count them really well and more crimes are reported to American police than other police forces. In Europe the number of property crimes and muggings that are actually reported is very low. They know the police won’t do anything. So America’s rates seem colossal compared to other countries, but it’s only because they do a more accurate job of counting, even the things that make them look bad.
I want to take up on the person that asked would we not shelter someone who came to our door in a snow storm?Maybe not.Maybe that person just picked a snow storm to make a house invasion like he would in the culture that he was from.We would think,in our culture,that he was a person in need but in his culture snow storm house invasions were the norm,in fact,applauded.
Multiculturalism is one of the most successful strategy that the left unleashed upon us. Face it, in their own backyards the left had run out of voters. Adding newly minted victim agenda voters has kept them afloat. The flood of most often inappropriate immigrants are offered welfare benefits, schooled on grievance attitudes and promised that assimilation won’t be an irritant to them.
The next best strategy of the left has been the draconian pc codes. Anyone raising an objection is a racist.
It’s brilliant and it has worked well for them so far.
Mr. ET says: ”Your example of creationism vs evolutionism has nothing to do with multiculturalism.”
Nor does your “the germ theory of disease is equivalent to the evil eye theory of disease”. That’s the point. No one in favor of multiculturalism subscribes to germ theory/evil eye theory equivalency. Nor do they “argue that the culture of the Cree was the equal of ancient Greece, that tribal societies of the southern hemisphere still living with leprosy, slave traders and cannibalism are the unimpeachable equivalent of those built by Israelis, the British, the Swiss.”
But it is interesting to note that many who agree with your opinion of multiculturalism DO subscribe to an evil eye equivalent:Creationism.
Kate, your closing comment is excellent.
I remember the question asked many years ago, why do we accept refugees from Turkey, a NATO ally. Something is wrong here.
Wimpy Canadian
You can pee in whichever direction you want, but I suggest peeing in the direction of the wind.
Western Civilization has nothing to be ashamed about. It has behaved no better, nor worse than any other civilization. It is certainly the dominant current civilization. Though some argue that the Chinese and Indians are catching up.
And yes, all civilizations are imperialist. However some civilizations have conquered under the shadow of guns while other havent. The Buddhist and Hindu civilizations emanating out of India influenced much of Asia, as far away as China and Japan, without an Indian army ever appearing either of those areas. As the Chinese ambassador to the US, Hu Shih, famously said: “India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border”.
This Judeo Christian civilization that is propogated is mythical insofar as it tends to ignore the whole picture, focusing instead of a few benefits. If western civilization produced democracy, it also produced fascism. If it produced capitalism, it also produced communism.
There is no white mans guilt involved. Objective analyses often tell a very different tale to the attempt to glorify a certain civilization by ignoring its less savoury aspects.
and Cal, Cal isnt Cal2 either. but I do like his statements.
Western Civilization has nothing to be ashamed about. It has behaved no better, nor worse than any other civilization.
The ultimate vacuous comment of the history challenged multi-culti moral equivalency left.
I rest my case.
penny,
As much as you want to believe that Western Civilization started with enlightenment, it didnt. Hitler and the Nazis are as much a product of Western Civilization as Jefferson and democracy.
Those who do not know any history should not call others history challenged. History has many a strange tale to tell. In the age of Osama, who would give any credence to Monsieur Aubrey de La Motraye, a Huguenot traveller escaping religious persecution in Christian France when he noted that :” there is no country on earth where the exercise of all religions is more free and less subject to being troubled, than in Turkey”. He was talking about the Islamic Ottoman regime and its treatment of Jews at a time when Christian kingdoms were routinely prosecuting and expelling jews.
Yes, history is a strange thing indeed. Especially when it is based on real facts, not the fiction you dream up on your porch.
The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around, and became a glorious one after enlightenment. There was a whole phase inbetween that some refer to as the Dark Ages. That was western civilization too.
Frankly, I think it is a simple distraction to try to figure out whether multiculturalism supports or condemns Western civilization. Irrelevant. Irrelevant, irrelevant.
We have all had multiculturalism shoved down our collective throats just like the gun registry, Kyoto, and all of the rest.
We have been forced to suffer the burdens of multiculturalism now for decades, and it really doesn’t matter how it may fit into the concourse of Western civilization.
We don’t like it. We’ve learned to distrust it. We suffered from its unintended consequences. And we’ve been forced to eat it whether we like it or not.
It is not an intellectual matter. We don’t care whether it can be used for the artful construction of arguments and ideas.
We have had to live with it, and we have learned that it is not good for us, and we reject it. Arguments on its behalf no longer matter, as they fly in the face of our actual long-term experience.
Anything can be argued, but nobody has to care.
jeremiah, you aren’t making any sense. The comment about the Dark Ages also being a “product” of Western Civilization is just bizarre.
Sociologists analyse the negtive barriers in a society to state the case to try and break them down and move on to something better. Now thats progress and modernity.
But when sociologist turn political to move forward against traditions that actually keep a culture together, such as multiculti activism has done, society doesn’t benefit at all.
Pascal Bruckner is skewering the intolerance of intolerance. It isn’t progressive to blindly accept or demolish a culture to accomodate another, its political. It’s crude identity politics trumped up in something called progress.
…that is “tolerance of intolerance.” My bad!
Kate: If we who live in “privileged” western liberal democracies have no moral authority to pass judgement upon the human experiments of others and pronounce them inferior to our own – then on what basis do you defend recognition of the “refugee” seeking safe harbour on our shores?
Jeremiah has already covered much of what I want to say on this point, so I’ll only add a few words more.
What we as Canadians judge as superior when recognizing the ‘refugee’ is our society’s willingness to tolerate what the ruling elite of the refugee’s homeland will not. Only by equating a nation’s (current) ruling elite with a people’s culture does your argument hold weight.
But of course this is not so–cultural tradition transcends political ideology. Here at home, the ruling Conservatives are no more the embodiment of a definitive ‘Canadian culture’ (insofar as such a thing exists) any more than the Liberals were when they were in power a scant few years ago. And if by chance a coup were to take place tonight, such that by morning, Parliament was overthrown, our political leaders were killed, a military dictatorship was installed, and we all were forced to seek safe harbour on the shores of France, how much would you be willing to concede: merely that a democratic republic state (even a Gallic one) is superior to a military dictatorial one? or that French culture is essentially superior to Canadian?
But this is getting off point. Let’s put aside the refugee issue, which is at best incidental to the question of multiculturalism. It is true enough that multiculturalism is founded on a paradox, but that needn’t discredit it — so too is, say, Western liberalism (i.e., democratic capitalism). To be sure, it is not without its tensions and its potential for doing great harm. Celebrating differences without also celebrating similarities can lead to segregation, or worse. And yet, this needn’t be a foregone conclusion — an inevitable march towards ‘legal apartheid,’ to use Buckner’s inflammatory prose. Multiculturalism, properly conceived, does not subjugate the individual to the group — it is, at once, both an acknowledgement of the differences between ethno-cultural groups and the transcendence of those differences as individuals.
Last, Bruckner’s argument presumes to equate tolerance with equivalence. Again, not so. While multiculturalism has, in its implementation, been occasionally taken to absurd accommodational extremes, Canada is on the whole nowhere near that point. Democratic governance, universal human rights, and the rule of law (Bruckner fails to mention that Ontario rejected sharia courts) remain bedrock. We respect (sometimes even celebrate) a plurality of free cultural expression, but only insofar as those cultural expressions are compatible with the fundamental principles of our democratic society. We can avoid the trap of post-modern moral relativism; we are still able to distinguish. Thus, for instance, we can encourage Muslim Canadians to practice their religion even as we reject — by our dominant cultural norms and by the rule of law — oppression of and violence against women. We abide the former where it does not involve the latter; where it does, we have rightly expressed outrage.
jrb,
I suspect my lack of coherence has more to do with taking some of the things I m saying out of context. I am not commenting on multiculturalism. I am however commenting on a statement made earlier that makes some baseless claims about the greatness of western civilization.
Western civilization, like all civilizations, has to be seen as a sum of its parts. And in the 4500 year old history of Western civilization, with each era connected in a number of ways, Western civilization did not come into existence with enlightenment. It came into existence with the Greeks and Romans. The eras that follow have invariably had an impact on what has followed. Such is the lesson of the human experience. To eradicate those phases that you dislike is to do a grave injustice. Every era is a part of western civilization. You cant pick and choose.
The Dark Ages are a product of western civilization in that it is the result of various events that took place within western civilization that ultimately culminated in the so-called Dark Ages. Communismt, Facism – these are all products of Western Civiliztion.
I keep getting the feeling that a couple of our commentors here may be posting to this blog from the planet Mars. They don’t seem to have any “real world knowledge” of … well, anything.
There is no other logical explanation for someone who argues so casually that Western civilization is “no better, no worse” than any other, than that perhaps they don’t actually live here. On planet Earth, I mean.
To put it more simply – who to believe? Jeremiah? Or my own lyin’ eyes?
My favourite ethical conundrum for multicultural relativists is female circumcision (which is actually genital mutilation). So many have impaled themselves on this one. As feminists they cannot help be revulsed by this, however their multicultural ethic says “it’s okay”, “I’m not to judge”. In other words, their hooped.
Sometimes they have said “It’s okay in their culture, in their country, but not ours”. Sorry, that doesn’t compute, it is not logical. You have to follow through on your logic. Which means whatever is okay “over there” must also be okay over here.
Inevitably, you must see the bankruptcy of this ethic. There must be an ultimate morality that transcends culture.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could just all get along? Welcome to Utopia, my friends.
Multiculturalism is dead — so pronounced by the leader of British Labour Party, Tony Blair. Yes, a “leftie” said that!
He, and others in his party, went even further: they denounced political correctness as a disease (something I have been saying for years).
To all those who still cling to the fantasy of multiculturalism, I suggest you read Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone”, Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” and, of course, Stewart Bell’s “Cold Terror” (note that Bell has a new edition out with new material, including stuff on the Toronto terrorists).
Every child in school should be required to read these books and books like them.
“The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around…” – Jeremiah
Yes, what with the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians. And all those glorious bathhouses and Roman orgies. The lefty’s ideal society right there.
“The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around…” – Jeremiah
Yes, what with the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians. And all those glorious bathhouses and Roman orgies. The lefty’s ideal society right there.
There’s a world of difference in making judgements about other cultures and thinking your superior to everyone else on the planet.
Personaly I prefer the enlightened west to any other culture. However people living in those other cultures have rights just like we do. They don’t become subhumans by virtue of coming from a different country.
And the hard right doesn’t really represent the enlightened west. It’s a reactionary force within it that distrusts and fears the rest of the world (the rest of the west especialy).
Jose, you’re missing the the point here. You are quite correct that people in other cultures have rights: by virtue of being human, not by virtue of their “community culture”.
But this confusion is widespread in the left, which is why feminists do nothing to liberate women in muslim cultures. They reserve liberty for themselves alone. Why do they fear liberty for women of other cultures?
And also the hard right – me 🙂 is not reactionary. That is just so last century “progressive” leftists’ drivel. It is the left today that is reactionary, wishing to maintain the status quo and re-apply nostrums that have been proven to have failed by bitter human experiments costing the lives of hundreds of millions. It is the right which has new ideas.
Jose, you’re missing the the point here. You are quite correct that people in other cultures have rights: by virtue of being human, not by virtue of their “community culture”.
But this confusion is widespread in the left, which is why feminists do nothing to liberate women in muslim cultures. They reserve liberty for themselves alone. Why do they fear liberty for women of other cultures?
And also the hard right – me 🙂 is not reactionary. That is just so last century “progressive” leftists’ drivel. It is the left today that is reactionary, wishing to maintain the status quo and re-apply nostrums that have been proven to have failed by bitter human experiments costing the lives of hundreds of millions. It is the right which has new ideas.
A, you said:
“cultural tradition transcends political ideology”
What blathering foolishness. Do you listen to the words coming out of your head?
It should read “liberty and humanity transcends cultural tradition”
Jeremiah
“Western Civilization has nothing to be ashamed about. It has behaved no better, nor worse than any other civilization.”
Herein lies the relativist trap. So, it’s just the same to live under an islamic or Aztec theocracy as to live in a Western liberal democracy? Or perhaps a mesopotamian city-state, code of Hamurabi and all? Chinese serf anyone?
Also, I suggest you google “Greek influence on Bhuddism”
“The history of Western civilization was a glorious one when the Romans were around, and became a glorious one after enlightenment. There was a whole phase inbetween that some refer to as the Dark Ages. That was western civilization too.”
The point is not to whitewash our past, but to recognize that it is the foundation upon which our values are built.
A, you said: “cultural tradition transcends political ideology”…It should read “liberty and humanity transcends cultural tradition”
Perhaps you and I have a different notion of what ‘cultural tradition” and ‘political ideology’ mean in this context. By the latter, I was referring to the (oppressive, likely authoritarian) political system from which Kate’s hypothetic refugee is fleeing, and by the former, I was referring to that refugee’s ‘set of learned beliefs, values, and behaviors that constitute a way of life shared by the members of her society” to which Canadians are apparently supposed to feel superior to.
I never even implied that liberty and humanity are subordinate to cultural tradition. In fact, I explicitly stated that multiculturalism requires that the opposite be true. However, I wouldn’t equate ‘liberty and humanity’ with ‘political ideology.’
A OK that’s clear.
BUT
the “set of learned beliefs, values, and behaviors that constitute a way of life shared by the members of her society” may very well be the cause of the oppression, war and poverty causing them to seek refuge in Canada. Does it then make sense to encourage them in their culture or adopt the culture that makes Canada a safe refuge?
Multiculteralism is the radical idea of wacky liberals who are out of thier minds SQUAWK SQUAWK
Kate, your closing comment on deciding who is a refugee says it all. But will the do-gooder/basket-weaving crowd get it ??
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Jose said: “There’s a world of difference in making judgements about other cultures and thinking your superior to everyone else on the planet.”
Jose, dude. Go read the article again, and then read my post waaaaay up at the top. Western culture IS superior to everything else on the planet. You can even -measure- the extent to which it is superior using anything from infant mortality to longevity to energy use per person.
Denying this is like saying sh1t rolls up hill. Polygamy SUCKS as a child rearing strategy compared to the standard Western family unit. Witchcraft sucks compared to the scientific method.
Humans are measurably the same within certain sloppy tolerances. What differentiates populations is mostly their shared culture. Culture is what gives us “traction” on the natural world. We get lots of grip where other guys just spin their wheels and don’t go anywhere.
when the individual is not free then the collective is not free, multiculturalism as it exists would seem to restrict individual freedom.
…the “set of learned beliefs, values, and behaviors that constitute a way of life shared by the members of her society” may very well be the cause of the oppression, war and poverty causing them to seek refuge in Canada. Does it then make sense to encourage them in their culture or adopt the culture that makes Canada a safe refuge?
Well, one might argue that if refugees are escaping culturally-rooted forms of persecution in their homeland (though, as Jeremiah noted earlier, it’s more often political masquerading as cultural), then they’re clearly not interested in importing with them those same aspects of their culture that have caused their own persecution. This would be something akin to a North Korean political dissident defecting to Canada but bringing with him a framed portrait of the Great Leader to hang in his living room.
Of course, this line of argument is limited, as it leaves aside the question of immigrants (versus refugees). On this broader question, I can only say that debate is ongoing. I will say this, though: it’s a strawman argument to claim that multiculturalists are moral relativists, as Bruckner would have it. Multiculturalism doesn’t imply that we accept all aspects of all cultures equally and without judgment. So, it’s not so much a choice of either “encouraging them in their culture or adopt the culture that makes Canada a safe refuge.” It’s not so black-or-white, all-or-none; one doesn’t (and cannot realistically be expected to) simply trade in one cultural set for another. Multiculturalism encourages more subtlety than that, though structures (e.g., formally, Charter rights and freedoms, the rule of law; informally, social values and norms of justice, equality, non-oppression, non-violence, etc.) that mediate cultural expression.
Not everyone agrees, of course. Incidentally, your critique is precisely the same as that of Susan Okin’s, a renowned feminist political theorist, who wrote an important essay a few years back entitled ‘Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?’ I recommend it if you haven’t read it already (retrievable via google). Another good reason to avoid blanket generalizations like “feminists do nothing to liberate women in muslim cultures. They reserve liberty for themselves alone. Why do they fear liberty for women of other cultures?”
“I keep getting the feeling that a couple of our commentors here may be posting to this blog from the planet Mars. They don’t seem to have any “real world knowledge” of … well, anything.”
The benefit of posting from the planet Mars, us that commentators such as myself can see all of planet Earth, the whole picture, so to speak. I admittedly dont go around shooting small dead animals, or, uh, painting cars, but I have travelled a fair bit of the world.
“There is no other logical explanation for someone who argues so casually that Western civilization is “no better, no worse” than any other, than that perhaps they don’t actually live here.”
Well Kate, I m glad to know that Western Civilization started the day you were born. If one were to factor in the holocaust and other such events, it would indeed be hard to claim that western civilization is the best. After all fascism and communism have claimed millions of human lives in the past century alone.
If one were to pick out the best civilization in the span of the last, perhaps four decades, then there is absolutely no doubt that Western Civilization RIGHT NOW, is the greatest of them all.
But then, Civilizations have one thing in common – once they rise to the top, they cant imagine that they will ever go back down. They are, perhaps like Kate, trapped in a bubble that refuses to acknowledge the reality of where they came from, and the reality of eventual decline. Western civilization is on top in our lifetime. But it has produced its share of evils. Like I said, if it created Western Liberal Democracy, it also created communism. This is the same civilization that values individual lives and liberties so much that it has engaged in two of the most brutal wars in human history.
Yes I m sitting on Mars. And I can see a whole lot more of planet Earth than one sitting in a town in Canada.
“To put it more simply – who to believe? Jeremiah? Or my own lyin’ eyes?”
Your own eyes are only as old as you. I hope.
Erich,
Again, a cursory reading of history can do that. While it is true that Rome persecuted Christian, it was also Rome’s adoption of Christianity that turned Christianity into a western religion. Theres a whole long complex history there.
Wimpy,
“Herein lies the relativist trap. So, it’s just the same to live under an islamic or Aztec theocracy as to live in a Western liberal democracy? Or perhaps a mesopotamian city-state, code of Hamurabi and all? Chinese serf anyone?”
Ah but you make the fatal mistake of assuming that all civilizations can be compared in a small time frame. Let me put it this way. When the Mesopotamian city states were in existence, Europeans were, well, Barbarians. You know living in trees and all that. The Mesopotamians had a whole city state while Western Europe had nothing that compared even slightly. Carthage was one of the greatest cities in the world. Poof. Gone.
Now to deny that the Mesopotamian civilization was one of the greater civilizations of its time is, well, betraying a lack of understanding of history. I would certainly have preferred to live under Hammurabis code of Law IN 2000 BC, than I would in France or Germany or England of 2000BC.
And as I noted, or rather Monsieur Aubrey de la Motraye, a famous huguenot traveller , persecuted in Christian France, noted the Islamic Ottaman Empire was a lot more tolerant and liberal than, well most of Christian Europe. There was a time when the Christian pope banned books about, amongst other things, democracy. At that time, I think it would have been more advantageous to live in the Islamic civilization where those books – Aristotle, Plato and all, were available.
And, well, I guess it would be far more beneficial living in modern day Scandinavia than in 1000 AD. But I dont think that is your point.
Your question isnt really a trap. Its a badly worded question. We live in the golden age of western civilization, yes.
In fact, there is an error on your part.Western Liberal Democracy, while no doubt a product of Western Civilization, did not exist for the duration of Western Civilization either. Making that equation skeweres your argument.
As for the influence of Greece on Buddhism, well it goes two ways. Read Will Durants works on the influence of Buddhism on Christianity. I m no fan of Durant, but some people on this board claim to be quite familiar with his works. Well heres something to chew. Ashoka “sent Buddhist missionaries to all parts of India and Ceylon, even to Syria, Egypt and Greece, where, perhaps, they helped prepare for the ethics of Christ.”
The human experience is long and complex. Equating western civilization with western democracy is a bit, well, fallacious.