Well, over at Cato-Unbound, They are having another interesting discussion, this time about multiculturalism - because even with topic based online discussions, some things are worth discussing, and others are not. (And we all know Europe is not doing so well - whether we wish to use words like "doom," or "decline" or only say the situation is "less grave than [Dalrymple] makes out.")
And the consensus is that - get this - multiculturalism is not well defined. Surprise! "There is Multiculturalism and Then There is Multiculturalism," as Tim Smith put it, in between severe bouts of I'm-Canadian-izing. On the other hand, as he rightfully points out near the end of his article, "Ethnic nationalism has a far bloodier past than multiculturalism." Ignoring the fact that the former has a far longer history than the latter, it is a fair point - live and let live philosophies rarely produce bloodshed. Of course, I doubt they produce much culture either.
Unless and until the work of actually judging the merits and shortcomings of differing systems occurs, we will never have progress in this area fraught with difficulties and misunderstandings. To quote J.S. Mill, who I am currently rereading,
"Popular opinions on subjects not palpable to sense," such as multiculturalism, "are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth ... Truth ... is so much a question of the reconciling and combining of opposites ... it has to be made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners."
While I am not worried, as Mill was, that either side of the debate is being stifled, I still believe that his approach on the matter could bear fruit - that is, we must attempt, to whatever extent we are able, to reconcile the valid points made against multiculturalism with it's beneficial side. We can all agree that less blood has been spilt over the last century because of embracing multiculturailsm to the exclusion of ethnic nationalism then vice-versa. What may be more difficult is understanding that a philosophy now rejected by most liberal intellectuals still has something to impart to us - the fact that the French are proud of their culture is not simply a artifact of their inability to embrach muslim immigrants. The fact that Muslims enclose themselves in ghettos in the midst of a culture they hate is partially bvecause they cannot find a way to embrace the aspects of the culture they dispise - its material wealth, but also its freedoms and some of the less crass parts of its culture - without irrevocably losing their own.
Unless and until the debate turns to how to preserve the worthy parts of a culture and help them reject the damaging aspects, we will never be able to co-exist with a culture that provided us with algebra and hashish, with almost all that we have of aristotilean philosophy and a virtue of murdericide. As I was told in high school; Simple problems have been solved already. If people need to discuss it, it's probably not as easy as it looks.
0 comments:
Post a Comment