Multiculturalism Is A Failure

· Multiculturalism
Authors

Multiculturalism is a Failure


Multiculturalism Is An Oxymoron


Let us first look at different definitions of multiculturalism:


  • the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • Multiculturalism is the acceptance or promotion of multiple ethnic cultures, for practical reasons and/or for the sake of diversity and applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations. …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
  • The idea that a society, notably one with a high rate of immigration, is enriched by celebrating the separate contributions of its component cultures; The notion that all cultures are equal
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/multiculturalism


From these various definitions we can already spot diversity in perception. On the one hand the aims of

(1) that different cultures co-exist in harmony enriching the whole with their diversity, and respecting one another and that all cultures are equal. But on the other hand

(2) stressing the importance of the different cultures, races, ethnicity’s (and religions), and the preservation of different cultures (religions) within a society, as a state or nation.


Unfortunately (1) contradicts (2). Hence the dichotomy. (1) stresses respect and harmony but (2) stresses the preservation of different cultures. And it boils down to whether the various cultural groups will integrate or that it is immiscible. [1]

Man’s Codes of Ethics

Man have always innovated laws, ethics, rules, constitutions to protect and preserve their communities. Yet have some of these laws been made obsolete with either time or new conditions not perceived before? Take the First Amendment in the American Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When this amendment was drawn up, the Founding Fathers of America feared the long and powerful arms of the Vatican and the Anglican Church as well as from all European monarchies. They felt that this amendment would free them from the tyranny of Monarchs and Popes or Archbishops who were all powerful at that era. But at that time no one envisaged the other forces that grew unnoticed such as Nazism, or Communism or Jihadism. And the First Amendments had no clauses or riders to plug this hole.

The First Amendment has (surreptitiously) provided the keys to fortress America  to Islam because under the cloak of religion, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of Islam nor be able to restrict its spread or its teachings in schools, and infiltrating the governmental institutions. The First Amendment provides Islam the legitimacy and the freedom to invade and to proselytise Islam freely in America. In theory, any Muslim seeking to enter America on religious grounds has a statutory right for entry. Morally, The American Government would be contravening the Constitution if they placed any restrictions on the Islamisation of America. The Muslims found this loop-hole and are exploiting it to the fullest despite the devious ways America is attempting to stem this tidal wave. The only way Americans can stop this subversion is to either provide a clause to give certain discretions to American Law Enforcement Agencies to override this rule if it is seen as detrimental to the security of America, or to declare that Islam is an unacceptable cult and banned. The ideology of Islam has make multiculturalism unacceptable because Islam is an autocratic supremacist fascist ideology incompatible with any other cultures.

Multiculturalism is a Failure

5 February 2011 Last updated at 18:55

State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron

David Cameron said Britain had encouraged different cultures to live separate lives

David Cameron has criticised “state multiculturalism” in his first speech as prime minister on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.

At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.

He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

D.Cameron: Multiculturalism has Failed

D. Cameron: Multiculturalism has Failed

The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK.

As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.

“Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” the prime minister said.

“Start Quote

It’s time the right hand knew what the far-right hand is doing”

David Blunkett Former home secretary

Meanwhile, the Muslim Council of Britain’s assistant secretary general, Dr Faisal Hanjra, described Mr Cameron’s speech as “disappointing”.

He told Radio 4’s Today programme: “We were hoping that with a new government, with a new coalition that there’d be a change in emphasis in terms of counter-terrorism and dealing with the problem at hand.

“In terms of the approach to tackling terrorism though it doesn’t seem to be particularly new.

“Again it just seems the Muslim community is very much in the spotlight, being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.”

In the speech, Mr Cameron drew a clear distinction between Islam the religion and what he described as “Islamist extremism” – a political ideology he said attracted people who feel “rootless” within their own countries.

“We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing,” he said.

The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.

Inayat Bunglawala from Muslims4Uk says Mr Cameron is “firing at the wrong target”

A genuinely liberal country “believes in certain values and actively promotes them”, Mr Cameron said.

“Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

“It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things.”

He said under the “doctrine of state multiculturalism”, different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives.

‘I am a Londoner too'”We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.”

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds “the key to achieving true cohesion” by allowing people to say “I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner… too”, he said.

Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said when Mr Cameron expressed his opposition to extremism, he meant all forms, not just Islamist extremism.

“There’s a widespread feeling in the country that we’re less united behind values than we need to be,” she told Today.

“There are things the government can do to give a lead and encourage participation in society, including all minorities.”

But the Islamic Society of Britain’s Ajmal Masroor said the prime minister did not appreciate the nature of the problem.

“I think he’s confusing a couple of issues: national identity and multiculturalism along with extremism are not connected. Extremism comes about as a result of several other factors,” he told BBC Radio 5 live.

Former home secretary David Blunkett said while it was right the government promoted national identity, it had undermined its own policy by threatening to withdraw citizenship lessons from schools.

He accused Education Secretary Michael Gove of threatening to remove the subject from the national curriculum of secondary schools in England at a time “we’ve never needed it more”.

“It’s time the right hand knew what the far-right hand is doing,” he said.

“In fact, it’s time that the government were able to articulate one policy without immediately undermining it with another.” [2]


Analysis: Laura Kuenssberg

image of Laura Kuenssberg Laura Kuenssberg Chief political correspondent, BBC News channel

David Cameron strode firmly into a debate where many politicians tread timidly.

In his view, such caution is part of the problem. In frank language he made abundantly clear he believes multiculturalism has failed. Any organisation that does not stand up to extremism will be cut off from public funds, and he wants the country to develop a stronger sense of shared identity.

It is the first time he has spoken so directly as prime minister, but there are echoes of what has gone before. Tony Blair edged away from multiculturalism in the years after the 7/7 bombings in London, and his ministers moved to stop funding any community organisation that did not challenge extremism. And what of Gordon Brown’s continual quest to strengthen “Britishness”?

Behind the scenes, ministers are reviewing the “prevent” strategy, the policies designed to try to deal with extremism. But the review, which had been planned for publication this month, is likely to be delayed. It is not clear yet how Mr Cameron will translate his strong words into action.

Human rights”Let’s properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

“These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations,” he added.

The Labour MP for Luton South, Gavin Shuker, asked if it was wise for Mr Cameron to make the speech on the same day the English Defence League staged a major protest in his constituency.

There was further criticism from Labour’s Sadiq Khan whose comments made in a Daily Mirror article sparked a row.

The shadow justice secretary was reported as saying Mr Cameron was “writing propaganda material for the EDL”.

Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi hit back, saying that “to smear the prime minister as a right wing extremist is outrageous and irresponsible”. She called on Labour leader Ed Miliband to disown the remarks. [2]

Angela Merkel: German multiculturalism has ‘utterly failed’

Chancellor’s assertion that onus is on new arrivals to do more to integrate into German society stirs anti-immigration debate

German chancellor Angela Merkel addresses young members of Christian Democratic Union party.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has courted growing anti-immigrant opinion in Germany by claiming the country’s attempts to create a multicultural society have “utterly failed”.

Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democratic Union party, Merkel said the idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily “side by side” did not work.

She said the onus was on immigrants to do more to integrate into German society.

“This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed,” Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, west of Berlin, yesterday.

Her remarks will stir a debate about immigration in a country which is home to around 4 million Muslims.

Last week, Horst Seehofer, the premier of Bavaria and a member of the Christian Social Union – part of Merkel’s ruling coalition – called for a halt to Turkish and Arabic immigration.

In the past, Merkel has tried to straddle both sides of the argument by talking tough on integration but also calling for an acceptance of mosques.

But she faces pressure from within the CDU to take a harder line on immigrants who show resistance to being integrated into German society.

Yesterday’s speech is widely seen as a lurch to the right designed to placate that element in her party.

Merkel said too little had been required of immigrants in the past and repeated her argument that they should learn German in order to cope in school and take advantage of opportunities in the labour market.

The row over foreigners in Germany has shifted since former central banker Thilo Sarrazin published a highly-controversial book in which he accused Muslim immigrants of lowering the intelligence of German society.

Sarrazin was censured for his views and dismissed from the Bundesbank, but his book proved popular and polls showed Germans were sympathetic with the thrust of his arguments.

One recent poll showed one-third of Germans believed the country was “overrun by foreigners”.

It also found 55% of Germans believed that Arabs are “unpleasant people”, compared with the 44% who held the opinion seven years ago.

In her speech, Merkel said the education of unemployed Germans should take priority over recruiting workers from abroad, while noting that Germany could not get by without skilled foreign workers.

The chancellor’s remarks appear to confirm a suspicion that she has sympathy with Sarrazin’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. On Friday, he declared: “Multiculturalism is dead”.

Other members of Merkel’s government disagree. In a weekend newspaper interview, her labour minister, Ursula von der Leyen (CDU), raised the possibility of lowering barriers to entry for some foreign workers in order to fight the lack of skilled workers in Europe‘s largest economy.

“For a few years, more people have been leaving our country than entering it,” she told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.

“Wherever it is possible, we must lower the entry hurdles for those who bring the country forward.”

The German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) has said Germany lacks about 400,000 skilled workers.

• This article was amended on 20 October 2010. The original sited Potsdam south of Berlin. This has been corrected. [3]

Nicolas Sarkozy declares multiculturalism had failed

French president Nicolas Sarkozy on Thursday declared that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

1:32AM GMT 11 Feb 2011

“We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him,” he said in a television interview in which he declared the concept a “failure”.

Prime Minister David Cameron last month pronounced his country’s long-standing policy of multiculturalism a failure, calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat home-grown extremism.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia’s former prime minister John Howard and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar have also in recent months said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants.[4]

Why multiculturalism has failed

By Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Source: Daily Telegraph, 23 May 2000

Multiculturalism threatens British identity and pits us against each other

NOTHING is for ever. Progressive ideas that are right, bright and appropriate at one historical moment can, in time, fade and decay or become defensive in the face of further progress. I believe this is what is happening to policies promoting British multiculturalism today. We urgently need ties that bind – and multiculturalism isn’t delivering them. It risks building barriers between the different tribes that make up Britain today, rather than helping to create a new shared sense of Britishness.

Few would deny there has been progress on race relations in recent years, but racism continues to blight many lives. I feel profoundly British, but experience has taught me to put a bucket of water under the letterbox when I go to bed and, just last week, a London cabbie refused to let me into his taxi because of the colour of my skin. I have fought against racism for three decades, and will always support uncompromising action against overt and hidden discrimination. However, our multicultural policies, with the emphasis on ethnic monitoring and on special provision for black and Asian communities seem increasingly divisive and irrelevant to a new generation of young people, and are out of touch with the way our world has moved on.

We do not have the optimistic and integrated society we all hoped for. It is not just Scottish and Welsh nationalism that threaten British identity. In these post-devolutionary times, multiculturalism is pitting all communities against each other. People who used to think of themselves as black are now retreating into tribal identities – demanding attention and resources for their particular patch. White people have no stake in multiculturalism, either – it is seen as something that black people do. The English are understandably disgruntled that their ethnicity is denied while all other identities – Welsh, Scottish, Hindu, Caribbean and the rest – are celebrated. Young white kids celebrate Diwali in schools without any sense of how it links to their own identity.

The cloak of multiculturalism has been worn by those with no interest in integration. Treating black people differently has enabled white institutions to carry on as if nothing substantive has changed since the arrival of the Windrush from the West Indies. As long as “ethnic minorities” were given some money and space to play marbles in the ghetto, nothing else needed to happen. Whether you look at the BBC or the top FTSE companies, the multicultural answer has failed to transform anything very much. Talking to the teenagers who have grown up with multiculturalism, I found that many young people – black, Asian, white and mixed race – are impatient with the whole ideology. They reject the traditional categories which multiculturalism tries to shoehorn them into.

Their notions of diversity go way beyond a love of curry. Although most feel connected to the values of their parents to some extent, their identities are changing in unpredictable ways. Young white men absorbing urban black ways of life (Ali G is really out there), and young Asian girls refusing forced marriages, show how cultures cannot remain static or settled whatever purists may wish. A young black man said, simply: “I think this kind of thinking is for sad old people.” A young Asian man was equally scathing: “Multiculturalism is a boring word. It is grey and small and domestic. It does not include Europeans. It does not include internationalism. It is like an old cardigan knitted out of different coloured scraps of wool.”

Others felt that multiculturalism merely has pernicious effects. Some community leaders use it to justify human rights abuses in their own backyard. Police and social workers are often reluctant to intervene where they suspect domestic violence, in case they are accused of racism. An Asian girl I interviewed said she was “treated like a Paki” both by white people and by her own family who forced her to marry a man who then repeatedly raped her. She said: “Their multiculturalism is just a cover. Some Asians use this to hide what they are doing to the girls in the community. Leaders and politicians let them get away with it.” So, whose multiculturalism is it, anyway?

The out-of-date term “ethnic minorities” is an obstacle to integration. It is based on the ludicrous assumption that there was once a large, homogeneous, white “majority” surrounded by “ethnic minorities” who were just too strange for words. These measures are even less defensible in a complex, diverse society grappling with devolution, globalisation and integration into Europe, American domination, collapsing values and fragmentation at every level.

My criticisms – which are outlined in After Multiculturalism, published this week – have nothing in common with the views of those who resent these policies because they regard this as a white Christian country that must resist diversity. More than ever we need a national conversation about our collective identity. We need to concentrate our energies on the ties that bind us and use this to create a new British identity. Diversity is an inescapable condition of modern life and respect for this is essential. That respect will have to apply to everyone, black and white. But respect for different ways of life cannot be allowed to destroy any sense that we live in the same country.

Once multiculturalism has been laid to rest, we can concentrate on developing a strong, diverse British identity rather than retreating into ever-smaller tribes.[5]

SUMMARY

“Today we see forces that are determined to undermine national identity, and national security, and national sovereignty with skill and determination even using national Constitutions to their advantage. Unfortunately so many are guilty of culpable complacency to the corrosive imperatives of “multiculturalism” & “political correctness” in the misguided perception that it is democratic, liberal, and Christian to hold such concepts. But in reality, “multiculturalism” is really a form of mono-cultural animus directed against the dominant (resident) culture. Sameul Huntingdon, a Harvard political scientist, notes:

“…multiculturalism is “anti-European civilisation ….It is basically an anti-Western ideology.” The multicultural advocates claim to be fostering a progressive cultural cosmopolitanism distinguished by superior sensitivity to the downtrodden and dispossessed. In fact, they encourage an orgy of self-flagellating liberal guilt as impotent as it is insatiable. The “sensitivity” of the multicultural advocates is an index not of moral refinement but of moral vacuousness.  As the French essayist Pascal Bruckner observed, “An overblown conscience is an empty conscience.”

“Compassion ceases if there is nothing but compassion, and revulsion turns to insensitivity. Our “soft pity,” as Stefan Zweig calls it, is stimulated, because guilt is a convenient substitute for action where action is impossible. Without the power to do anything, sensitivity becomes our main aim. The aim is not so much to do anything, as to be judged. Salvation lies in the verdict that declares us to be wrong.”

Multiculturalism is a moral intoxicant; its thrill centres around the emotion of superior virtue; its hangover subsists on a diet of nascences and blighted “good intentions.”

Wherever the imperatives of multiculturalism have touched the curriculum, they have left broad swaths of anti-Western attitudes competing for attention with quite astonishing historical blindness.

But multiculturalism is not only an academic phenomenon. The attitudes it fosters have profound social as well as intellectual consequences. One consequence has been a sharp rise in the phenomenon of immigration without- or with only minutiae-assimilation: a dangerous demographic trend that threatens American identity in the most basic way.

These various agents of dissolution are also elements in a wider culture war: the contest to define how we live and what counts as the good in the good life. Anti-Americanism occupies such a prominent place on the agenda of the culture wars precisely because the traditional values of American identity – articulated by the Founders and grounded in a commitment to individual liberty and public virtue – are deeply at odds with the radical, de-civilising tenets of the “multicultural” enterprise.” [6]





References:




[x] Multiculturalism and Islam: http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8815

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: