March 4th, 2006
It was the end of an English class and focus had drifted somewhat, with the kind of intellectuals on my table any topic is fair game and this time it was about “multiculturalism”. One person didn’t agree with multiculturalism and there happened to be two girls from different cultures within earshot. It wasn’t long before he was called a racist. I for one am very cautious in chucking these terms around, though obviously to some people it is as clear cut as that.
Things escalated through the use of emotive language; we’re talking about English students here. The person in question didn’t express himself as calmly as he should have done, because if he had then they would both realise that multiculturalism really is cobblers. It sounds like a liberal idea, but really it’s quite conservative–it tangibly shows what we already know: that Labour has inched towards the right. Before you claim I’m a crazy racist, consider these three ways of describing a nation’s culture:
Surely the melting pot and multiculturalism ideas are the same? This is where the accusations start flying, people look at these three options and only see two. So if you don’t agree with multiculturalism they assume you’re an old colonial monoculturalist (a racist). So what’s the difference between the two? Wikipedia says it better than me:
Multiculturalism: In comparison to the above two approaches, multiculturalism is a view, or policy, that immigrants, and others, should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one nation.
Melting Pot: In the United States the traditional view has been one of a melting pot where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention.
So an immigrant who wants to live in Britain under multiculturalism doesn’t have to make changes to their own culture, as long as they coexist peacefully. An immigrant who wants to live in America in the melting-pot has to accept key parts of the American culture. Well why can’t they keep their own culture if they coexist peacefully? Herein lies the impossibility. You just have to accept that some cultures can’t coexist peacefully. How could a middle-eastern immigrant who believes that it is a sin for a woman to show uncovered skin, or that women are not as equal as men, live in this country peacefully? Well–there’s always peaceful protest? But how would you think the scenario of a man walking up and down Westminster wearing a sign “Repeal the votes for Women” scenario would end? That’s the beauty of free speech, he could do it all he liked but noone would care, but change it slightly and imagine there are hundreds of people protesting. Wonder how that one would end. What about a culture of honour killings? What about a culture that censors the internet? I really don’t see how they can “coexist peacefully”.
I’d much rather live under the “diffusion” idea. Sure you can come over and live in our melting-pot but you sure as hell better believe in freedom of speech, or that you can’t justify murder whatever a religion might say. Though that’s not to say leave your culture at the door. Take the example of food: Tika Masala is probably as much known as Fish and Chips, admittedly a trivial example, but there are many other less trivial examples like people coming from a culture who believe that work is the best way to enrich their lives and their families back home.
So that’s “each to their own” multiculturalism or “work with society or piss off” melting-pot. Hmm…there’s something about “each to their own” that’s familiar–yes–that’s a conservative idea isn’t it?
March 6th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
…
and i still have yet to go to library for educational reasons. Bah.
Immigration in US… it’s interesting. Yha, they have to follow rules and whatnot, but they don’t have to give up their culture. And technically, we’re not allowed to call ourselves the “melting-pot” anymore because of various unnamed reasons (if that makes a different at all.)
Cheers!