fotografx
10-07-2007, 08:44 PM
That some populations of cities and nations have contained people of and from diverse cultures has been a fact of history since the earliest records. In times past wars of conquest, trade in slaves, people fleeing dangers of various kinds, and peaceful trade have contributed to a mixing of people of diverse cultural origins in new and different social contexts. Since the 2nd World War and the advent of more efficient and faster mass transportation, population migration and multicultural mixes of ever greater diversity and complexity has occurred. In the new world multicultural mixtures of people of different origins became the norm, and particularly in the United States and Canada. New cultures resulted from these "melting pots" creating entirely unique societies of cultural hybrids, a kind of mongrel breed of humans. In some countries and communities that had stable homogenous populations for centuries, like old Europe a need for labor and great wealth and opportunity differentials created a migration from Muslim lands into the heart of Christianity creating enclaves of tribal people who neither desired or were encouraged to integrate into the host society. This multi cultural fact has both resulted in conflict and a population of second and even third generation people who are neither of the parent Muslim culture or that of the land in which they were born, and their ambiguous self-identity has been a weakness exploited by radical dissidents.
The present multicultural mix with its conflicts and insoluble social problems has developed gradually and largely unnoticed over the past half century until 9-11 and Osama bin Laden's declaration war existed between the civilizations of East (Islam) and the West. From his perspective, and that of many disaffected Muslims around the world, Islam is seen as having been under attack by the West, and particularly America; and Muslims should engage in Jihad to defend the faith. Of course most in the West see this view as having no basis is reality and therefore the ravings of a madman. But an understanding of the Koran, the nature of Muslim faith, and the fact it requires of believers submission to a very suppressive kind of tribal culture; combined with a perspective of history whose facts do in all rationality support the idea Islam has declined and the West has ascended due in large part to imperial colonialism and the hegemony of first one super power, the Soviet Union, and now a second in the West led by America, cannot be denied as historical fact. Neither side pays dues to the fact the Turks chose to side with Germany in the First WW, and then being on the loosing side lost the entire Ottomon Empire to British and French control. So imagine from 1918 through the 2nd WW much of the Muslim world had to abide the indignities of control by white-skinned Christians. To them it was an ignominious loss in what was begun a millennium before with the Crusades and the first Western invasion of the then Arabic middle east.
This is not offered as any apology or justification for 9-11 and Islamic terrorism, but rather an understanding that it is not just the result of a few crazies, but a much broader and deeper hostility and resentment, that is also a significant element in the intractable problem of the multicultural realities the West is trying to deal with inside its own boarders. So far most western nations have responded to their particular problems stemming from a multicultural reality with policies that are in one form or another broadly under the rubric of Multiculturalism. What this term refers to is really an extension of the foundational values of democratic self-governanace based on Enlightenment concepts of individual rights and freedoms, ideals like those of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity in France along with its strong belief in the separation of church and state.
Western democratic societies in their respect for both the individual and the rights and freedoms accorded by secular governments, is tolerant therefore of individual religious freedom to worship and belief without discrimination. Therefore if a society and its constitutional government supports freedom of religion and individual worship, all religions must be awarded equal tolerance, which essentially treats all religions equally, making no distinction between different faiths or religious practices. All religions therefore in the eyes of democratic governments and law are the same, parallel to the concept that each individual is afforded equal protection under the law. Putting this extension of democratic principle into practice as a policy of multiculturalism has had unintended consequences when the tenets of faith, like Shariah, if followed by a devout Muslim results in an act that is unlawful in a western democracy, like honor killing, the imposition of a death sentence for apostasy, forcing a minor child to mary someone not of their choosing, or subjecting female children to circumcision. In some jurisdictions an offense to the law of the land is waived if the offender's culture requires it, while in other jurisdictions the culturally required behavior has led to arrest, prosecution, trial and penalty according to law. If multiculturalism prevails and culture is an exception to the law all indigenous citizens must obey, the majority of the population is badly and unfairly served, and if honor killing is treated as capital murder those who believe it is called for by their religious and cultural beliefs are offended.
This concept of multiculturalism that all religions and cultures are equivalent and therefore provided equal protection and toleration is fundamentally flawed when extended by a western democratic society to an Islamic culture that does not and cannot reciprocate with equal tolerance and respect for western democratic values like free speech, separation of church and state and the rule of secular law.
The idea of extending tolerance equally to all religions and hence to cultures that are Islamic may be consistent with our liberal, humanist, western democratic values including the tolerance and respect enjoyed in the religious freedom our societies afford, but if our values are not equally understood, respected and tolerated, we undermine both ourselves and do a disservice to Muslims by allowing them our protection and respect when it is not reciprocated because the Quran forbids it and Islam and its followers must obey.
However, there is a more fundamental basis for rejecting the equivalence that is contained in the idea of multiculturalism policy. And that should be evident if what culture is and how it functions is fully understood. Culture is in a very real sense a living organism that is an extension of The beliefs and values of all of the individuals who participate and support a particular culture. Therefore a culture also has all of the attributes common to human beings including such fundamental instincts as those for survival and self protection. Cultures respond to new ideas with the same skepticism and reserve as individuals as a way of protecting the integrity of the culture. A threat to a culture by an alien incursion obtains the same kind of response as is demonstrated by individuals. The great majority of a population and its culture are in concurrence and evolve along parallels paths. However problems arise when social institutions like government initiate changes and implement policies that are counter to the nature of the culture, when government responds to just one faction within the population and upsets the balance.
This was seen very dramatically in the recent "immigration" debate that still has yet to be resolved. This is a country and culture of immigrants, but it is also a culture that strongly believes and upholds fair play and upholds the rules of the game and withholds support for those who cheat and do not play be the rules of the game. In other words "illegal" immigrants have come into America by cheating, by not playing according to the rules of the game (the standard expectations of the culture) and thus they are rejected and seen as undesirable by most American. However the large numbers of illegal immigrants is due to the government's failure to enforce the laws, in very large part by responding to the influence of American business's desire to obtain cheap labor that is compliant because the workers do not have legal status. As this immigration debate and conflict has progressed polls of Americans have indicated Americans do not respond to jingoist condemnation of immigrants on an ethnic or racial basis and are largely favorable to immigrants who have come to America by the "front door", but are opposed to immigrants who sneak in by the back door, and because they see this as cheating, they are not forgiving and do not support legalizing or providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. In other words cheating is not forgiven - play by the rules of the game, and whether you are a Mexican or an Arab is not important, but getting in by cheating is not acceptable in American cultural values.
America however, suffers fewer problems with legal immigrant populations than in Europe because the culture expects newcomers should integrate, and encourages learning the language and becoming fluent in American cultural ways and norms. And, if they do integrate they don't just become citizens by applying and passing the test, but they become culturally American. That American culture is not always and fully acquired and supported by immigrants is reflected by the fact some Americans are hyphenated Americans, with one foot in American culture and the other in the culture of origin, like Mexican-Americans or Cuban-Americans. Hyphenated Americans often and usually refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans, and some like African-Americans do so because they are and believe they are not fully Americans, so partially reject some American cultural values, which assures their separation and exclusion making the hyphenation a dead-end vicious circle of self-perpetuating second-class status.
Knowing and understanding that culture reflects the identity and integrity of a common people who share values, norms, language and ways of life; the very idea of multiculturalism should be an abhorrent aberration, an idea that by its nature contradicts itself. The inclusion of cultural members and groups into another will work only if the immigrants desire integration and its achievement is supported by the larger culture, as well as on a basis of mutual, reciprocal tolerance and respect for individual differences particularly in religious faith and beliefs. The latter has been historically protected in large part because American culture has been strongly individualist providing a wide berth for differences because they were seen as private, personal matters another individual should not broach or question. However, in recent years religious beliefs have been outered by politicizing issues of faith and injecting their religious foundation into the collective realm. By making the religious an adjunct of public politics the protection afforded by the cultural value given faith as being a private matter, has been weakened. And, by making religious congregations and institutions an adjunct of political action the wall of separation of church and state has been undermined. Without a clear and respected separation of church and state, both religious and political freedom are weakened and threatened one by the other.
David B. Brooks
The present multicultural mix with its conflicts and insoluble social problems has developed gradually and largely unnoticed over the past half century until 9-11 and Osama bin Laden's declaration war existed between the civilizations of East (Islam) and the West. From his perspective, and that of many disaffected Muslims around the world, Islam is seen as having been under attack by the West, and particularly America; and Muslims should engage in Jihad to defend the faith. Of course most in the West see this view as having no basis is reality and therefore the ravings of a madman. But an understanding of the Koran, the nature of Muslim faith, and the fact it requires of believers submission to a very suppressive kind of tribal culture; combined with a perspective of history whose facts do in all rationality support the idea Islam has declined and the West has ascended due in large part to imperial colonialism and the hegemony of first one super power, the Soviet Union, and now a second in the West led by America, cannot be denied as historical fact. Neither side pays dues to the fact the Turks chose to side with Germany in the First WW, and then being on the loosing side lost the entire Ottomon Empire to British and French control. So imagine from 1918 through the 2nd WW much of the Muslim world had to abide the indignities of control by white-skinned Christians. To them it was an ignominious loss in what was begun a millennium before with the Crusades and the first Western invasion of the then Arabic middle east.
This is not offered as any apology or justification for 9-11 and Islamic terrorism, but rather an understanding that it is not just the result of a few crazies, but a much broader and deeper hostility and resentment, that is also a significant element in the intractable problem of the multicultural realities the West is trying to deal with inside its own boarders. So far most western nations have responded to their particular problems stemming from a multicultural reality with policies that are in one form or another broadly under the rubric of Multiculturalism. What this term refers to is really an extension of the foundational values of democratic self-governanace based on Enlightenment concepts of individual rights and freedoms, ideals like those of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity in France along with its strong belief in the separation of church and state.
Western democratic societies in their respect for both the individual and the rights and freedoms accorded by secular governments, is tolerant therefore of individual religious freedom to worship and belief without discrimination. Therefore if a society and its constitutional government supports freedom of religion and individual worship, all religions must be awarded equal tolerance, which essentially treats all religions equally, making no distinction between different faiths or religious practices. All religions therefore in the eyes of democratic governments and law are the same, parallel to the concept that each individual is afforded equal protection under the law. Putting this extension of democratic principle into practice as a policy of multiculturalism has had unintended consequences when the tenets of faith, like Shariah, if followed by a devout Muslim results in an act that is unlawful in a western democracy, like honor killing, the imposition of a death sentence for apostasy, forcing a minor child to mary someone not of their choosing, or subjecting female children to circumcision. In some jurisdictions an offense to the law of the land is waived if the offender's culture requires it, while in other jurisdictions the culturally required behavior has led to arrest, prosecution, trial and penalty according to law. If multiculturalism prevails and culture is an exception to the law all indigenous citizens must obey, the majority of the population is badly and unfairly served, and if honor killing is treated as capital murder those who believe it is called for by their religious and cultural beliefs are offended.
This concept of multiculturalism that all religions and cultures are equivalent and therefore provided equal protection and toleration is fundamentally flawed when extended by a western democratic society to an Islamic culture that does not and cannot reciprocate with equal tolerance and respect for western democratic values like free speech, separation of church and state and the rule of secular law.
The idea of extending tolerance equally to all religions and hence to cultures that are Islamic may be consistent with our liberal, humanist, western democratic values including the tolerance and respect enjoyed in the religious freedom our societies afford, but if our values are not equally understood, respected and tolerated, we undermine both ourselves and do a disservice to Muslims by allowing them our protection and respect when it is not reciprocated because the Quran forbids it and Islam and its followers must obey.
However, there is a more fundamental basis for rejecting the equivalence that is contained in the idea of multiculturalism policy. And that should be evident if what culture is and how it functions is fully understood. Culture is in a very real sense a living organism that is an extension of The beliefs and values of all of the individuals who participate and support a particular culture. Therefore a culture also has all of the attributes common to human beings including such fundamental instincts as those for survival and self protection. Cultures respond to new ideas with the same skepticism and reserve as individuals as a way of protecting the integrity of the culture. A threat to a culture by an alien incursion obtains the same kind of response as is demonstrated by individuals. The great majority of a population and its culture are in concurrence and evolve along parallels paths. However problems arise when social institutions like government initiate changes and implement policies that are counter to the nature of the culture, when government responds to just one faction within the population and upsets the balance.
This was seen very dramatically in the recent "immigration" debate that still has yet to be resolved. This is a country and culture of immigrants, but it is also a culture that strongly believes and upholds fair play and upholds the rules of the game and withholds support for those who cheat and do not play be the rules of the game. In other words "illegal" immigrants have come into America by cheating, by not playing according to the rules of the game (the standard expectations of the culture) and thus they are rejected and seen as undesirable by most American. However the large numbers of illegal immigrants is due to the government's failure to enforce the laws, in very large part by responding to the influence of American business's desire to obtain cheap labor that is compliant because the workers do not have legal status. As this immigration debate and conflict has progressed polls of Americans have indicated Americans do not respond to jingoist condemnation of immigrants on an ethnic or racial basis and are largely favorable to immigrants who have come to America by the "front door", but are opposed to immigrants who sneak in by the back door, and because they see this as cheating, they are not forgiving and do not support legalizing or providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. In other words cheating is not forgiven - play by the rules of the game, and whether you are a Mexican or an Arab is not important, but getting in by cheating is not acceptable in American cultural values.
America however, suffers fewer problems with legal immigrant populations than in Europe because the culture expects newcomers should integrate, and encourages learning the language and becoming fluent in American cultural ways and norms. And, if they do integrate they don't just become citizens by applying and passing the test, but they become culturally American. That American culture is not always and fully acquired and supported by immigrants is reflected by the fact some Americans are hyphenated Americans, with one foot in American culture and the other in the culture of origin, like Mexican-Americans or Cuban-Americans. Hyphenated Americans often and usually refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans, and some like African-Americans do so because they are and believe they are not fully Americans, so partially reject some American cultural values, which assures their separation and exclusion making the hyphenation a dead-end vicious circle of self-perpetuating second-class status.
Knowing and understanding that culture reflects the identity and integrity of a common people who share values, norms, language and ways of life; the very idea of multiculturalism should be an abhorrent aberration, an idea that by its nature contradicts itself. The inclusion of cultural members and groups into another will work only if the immigrants desire integration and its achievement is supported by the larger culture, as well as on a basis of mutual, reciprocal tolerance and respect for individual differences particularly in religious faith and beliefs. The latter has been historically protected in large part because American culture has been strongly individualist providing a wide berth for differences because they were seen as private, personal matters another individual should not broach or question. However, in recent years religious beliefs have been outered by politicizing issues of faith and injecting their religious foundation into the collective realm. By making the religious an adjunct of public politics the protection afforded by the cultural value given faith as being a private matter, has been weakened. And, by making religious congregations and institutions an adjunct of political action the wall of separation of church and state has been undermined. Without a clear and respected separation of church and state, both religious and political freedom are weakened and threatened one by the other.
David B. Brooks