The word, "multicultural" is relatively new, used widely around 1990. The word "multiculturalism" was an euphemism for "multi-racial." It was the preferred word with those conscious of "political correctness" because it removed the connotations of race or skin colour. But this has distorted and mislead public perception that this cause meant equality and fairness for all peoples, but the truth is far from this.
Soon after WW II, there was a great influx of coloured people into the largely war torn European countries that needed rebuilding and thus was short of labour. Britain, for example, saw a great influx of coloured peoples from her ex-colonies where the standards of living was very poor and with no social services, and Britain offered work with good, comparative wages, backed with a very generous social welfare and service. So coloured people from the West Indies, Africa, Pakistan, and India began pouring into Britain and likewise, coloured peoples from other parts of the European colonies poured into Europe.
Most of these Asian and African immigrants naturally brought their native cultures and religions with them, and because of the contrast in their cultures with that of the indigenous population (the British people), these immigrants tended to live securely in their own ghettos and make no effort to integrate. Hence pockets of immigrants, having their own language/dialects, customs, food preferences, clothing requirements, and religions existed in complete isolated communities even several generations later. There was no evidence of any hybridisation of peoples, cultures or religions. Each lived totally independent lives isolated and indifferent to their alien neighbours , the British. These immigrants have remained pockets of people from a foreign culture, living in an alien land, with an alien and unacceptable culture. It was never their intention to give up their culture or even part of it to live a more integrated and interwoven existence with the natives. They came to establish their own community proudly and defiantly. Why should they give up any of the culture of their forefathers? The immigrants had no intentions of integration or hybridisation. The immigrants wanted only to continue to live their independent communal lives, but taking advantage and benefiting from the better social conditions and opportunities and excellent welfare and social services available to all. But some native do-gooder liberalists and opportunistic politicians saw this self imposed isolation of these immigrants as the result of discriminatory and prejudicial attitudes of the native population and believed that the solution was to force "multiculturalism" on to the natives. However, even after 2 or 3 generations of "political correctness" and "artificial positive discrimination," these immigrants resisted and resented this attempt at "forced artificial integration." It made the division of "us and them" even more clearly defined and the cause of more dissension and animosity.
This alienation is not because of discrimination or lack of opportunities offered to the immigrants, as the proponents of multiculturalists have thought, but it was the gulf of cultures, customs, traditions, and religious beliefs and moral codes that has stone-walled any possible integration or assimilation. The lack of appreciation of the different cultures and religious dogma of the immigrants was not, and still is not, appreciated. Because each culture prefers to exist as a monoculture within a well intended secular-minded liberal society meant that the policies of "MULTICULTURALISM" IS DOOMED TO FAILURE.
Multiculturalism is an unsound political theory advocated by liberals, academics, media personnel, social theorists, government officials, Politicians (and do-gooders.)
The policy encourages and maintains support to protect and foster an alien culture within the host culture and dilutes and undermines that native culture and way of life. It emboldens the migrants to demand their rights at the expense of the native rights. It becomes a breeding ground for "micro-nations" within the host nation each with its own cultural and political agenda and creates further alienation of these micro-nationals. Evidence of these immiscible "micro-nationals" can be observed with all the violent demonstrations and riots caused in Europe.
No doubt, you will ask, "Then what is the alternative?"
The short reply is, "National sovereignty of all nation states to decide their own fate without the interference of liberal "do-gooders" or such biased bodies like the United Nations or the European Union on National matters.
Reference:
http://knol.google.com/k/mbp-lee/multiculturalism-a-moral-intoxicant/1l23x9udotn1a/48#
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
