Not As Good As You Thought It Was

There is a new book out by Goran Adamson entitled The Trojan Horse: A Leftist Critique of Multiculturalism in the West and it provides a lot that will make you comfortable in feeling that all these mew-fangled ideas of multicilturalism and moral relativsm and such are not really that good.

Excerpt from one review:

reason, freedom and individuality – the cornerstones of democracy and civil rights – are being undermined by the ideology of multiculturalism and its elevation of particular identities and rights over universal political freedom.

the methods and theories of multiculturalists are similar to those of right-wing extremists: both want to force reality to conform to their worldview, rather than respond to it as it really is.

parallels between multiculturalism and old-fashioned racial thinking. For instance, as Adamson points out, multicultural ideology makes a fetish, like the racial theories of yore, of ethnic diversity. What matters is not, as Martin Luther King believed, the content of one’s character, but the colour of one’s skin. Common human traits, such as the capacity for abstract thinking, creativity and self-consciousness, are effaced in the name of what divides us. In this sense, multiculturalism is just as fixated on race as the racist thought of the past.

treat[ing] them as individuals who have a basic human need for self-determination; rather, ‘the immigrant’ is an abstract type, a species, a race. Thus the racist implications of multiculturalism loom large despite its ostensible anti-racism. The ‘other’ is presented as either inherently fascinating or as a fragile victim. They are not like us. And in this separation of us from them, racism festers,

universalism and inclusivity of the civil-rights movement appears to the ardent multiculturalist as an embarrassing form of ‘cultural imperialism’.

European liberalism unique, and different to its pre-Enlightenment rivals, Adamson suggests, is that it explicitly attempts to remove questions of moral value from the political sphere

in their eagerness to avoid accusations of racism, left-leaning liberals have abandoned traditionally progressive liberal principles. And, in doing so, they have unwittingly embraced a form of multiculturalism that is deeply ideological and illiberal in its current form.

And from another:

multiculturalism contains numerous intolerant qualities bordering on racism; such as the exotification of the ethnic group, and the thin veil between ethnicity and nationalism. Multiculturalism replaces racism towards other cultures with a fascination and an obsession with the other.

assumption that diversity is anti-racism and that multiculturalism rests on a progressive, tolerant, and egalitarian foundation and finds it deeply troubling that views that contest such thinking are denigrated. On the contrary Adamson asserts that a scientific discussion should allow for the opposite point of view where diversity and racism are two branches of early 19th century political romanticism. By not so doing, Swedish universities have failed in their intellectual mission – the only mission that matters – and descended into ‘mindless trumpeting of Social Democratic pseudo-radicalism’. He concludes that ideas embedded in multiculturalism under whose umbrella diversity falls, have failed concerning the independence of universities in regard to ideological debate and critical thinking. This has undermined the autonomy of lecturers and researchers and ‘infiltrated panels, projects, institutes, faculties, offices, courses and curricula’. The final damning charge is that it has let students down: ‘instead of showing them how to think, it has told them what to think’.

^

When Multi-Culturalism is Exploited To Favor Islam: Sharia vs. Suckling?

When a breast-feeding mother was 'told to leave council headquarters because she would offend Muslim visitors' being in a ‘multicultural building’.

That's odd because I distinctly remember see Muslim women breast-feeding in public, albeit modestly, in the street and on buses when I lived in the Old City in Jerusalem.  Not to mention this weird item on adult suckling.

The story:

A mother was ordered not to breastfeed her baby in public because she was in a ‘multicultural building’.

Emma Mitchell, 32, was about to feed 19-week-old son Aaron when a receptionist at a town hall warned her to stop (btw, there is a law in the UK which allows nursing mothers to breastfeed in public)...‘It was just awful. I felt humiliated, intimidated and guilty through the whole thing,’ she said. ‘What I was doing was one of the most natural things a mother can do. You hear everywhere that breast is best for your baby, so why wouldn’t I be allowed to do that?’

The incident occurred when Mrs Mitchell, from Oldham, was in the Citizens’ Advice Bureau in Oldham Civic Centre...the manager...told me that I couldn’t breastfeed here and to go into the shopping centre’s public toilets instead.

...Michelle Booth, 38, a friend who was at the civic centre, said: ‘I don’t understand. It’s political correctness gone mad when they’re worried about offending people of other cultures over something so natural.’

Sharia vs. Suckling?

^

First Germany, Then Spain, Then UK and Now France: Multiculturalism Goes Minor

The wave rolls on.

First, it was Merkel in Germany.

Then Aznar in Spain.

Then it was Cameron in England.

And now...Sarkozy of France:-

"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.

"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side

.

Hello, America? You on to this?


P.S.

And as for Russia:-

For Russia the thesis about the failed co-existence of various cultures is unacceptable, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said. "We must not let ourselves be provoked into discussions over the failure of multiculturalism," he said at a meeting with heads of ethnic cultural organizations and ethnographists in Bashkortostan on Friday.

Currently, there is a lot of debate on this subject in Europe, Medvedev said. "If we talk about the failure of multiculturalism, then traditions can be destroyed, which is a dangerous thing and European nations should also understand this," he said.

But, is falafel a symbol of multiculturalism gone bad? In Australia it does, it seems.

^

Good News or Bad?

^

Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed", Chancellor Angela Merkel says.

She said the so-called "multikulti" concept - where people would "live side-by-side" happily - did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate - including learning German.

The comments come amid rising anti-immigration feeling in Germany.

A recent survey suggested more than 30% of people believed the country was "overrun by foreigners".

The study - by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think-tank - also showed that roughly the same number thought that some 16 million of Germany's immigrants or people with foreign origins had come to the country for its social benefits.

.

And The New Op-ed Editor of The Forward Is...

...Daniel Treiman and he describes himself as:-

I am not Israeli, nor am I a Zionist. (As an American Jew, I identify as a pro-Zionist non-Zionist, to make a distinction - a la the 1956 Blaustein-Ben Gurion agreement - that has become, unfortunately, a bit anachronistic.)

Isn't that a bit...backwards? After all, even in 1956 that was a bit out-of-touch.

And in that piece he wrote:-

...why not create space for both groups [Israelis and Arabs] to express their identities side by side, in civility, without requiring either to adulterate theirs to accommodate the other’s?

If Israel has a flag, seal and anthem that speak to Jewish history, why not allow Israel’s Arab minority to have its own symbols and standards that speak to Arab identity? If Jewish schools teach Jewish history, why not grant the Arab sector autonomy over its own educational curricula?

Sure, working out the contours of Arab autonomy would be a challenge, and this approach does come with its own attendant dangers. But it may be the best way of heading off calls for stripping Israel of its Jewish attributes. And it does so by offering a Zionist-friendly response to the post-Zionist challenge.

Why not?

Because they are not a state nor a separate autonomous entity and because they only want those symbols so as to deny them to the Jews. The Jews have been very civil in suggesting the yielding of their national homeland's territory in pre-state and post-state years. Israel has the "Peace Now" groups; the Arabs don't.

I hope The Forward's op-ed pages will be pluralistic and forward-looking. (One can hope, yes? It's Israel's national anthem after all)