Multiculti - no comments

Another new word is born. The knives do seem to be out for multiculturalism in the West. For example, this has done the rounds recently:



The Cox & Forkum cartoon comes with a blog entry too.

Précis: liberals support multiculturalism because they're in denial about "their own culture", and through fear of offending those from other cultures (sorry, fear of offending anyone).

The implication is that British liberals are aware of "British cultures" but hate/fear/deny that which created them, and yet are unable to criticise the "market of cultures" they themselves have created/allowed to exist.

Furthermore, the fact that a culture can break the ground rules of civil society (for example: your favourite and mine: female genital mutilation) apparently means:

• that culture can be judged to be less worthy.
• this implies a failure of, and negligence within multiculturalism.
• Finally, it isn't possible for the law to step in and set limits that apply to all cultures.

To me, the fact that people feel trapped or alienated 'within their own culture' (cultural group would be more accurate) is not a fault of multiculturalism, but a fault within that cultural group (no, by implication, this does not necessarily extend to the religion/ethnic group the group is based upon), and a problem of economic and social mobility. It certainly doesn't imply that some other culture is better, and, for liberals, we allow multiple cultures to coexist because there is no way to externally judge that any one culture is superior to any other, whether it is indigenous or not.

However much a particular culture is attached to practices like forced marriages, if these are in clear breach of British law and the principle of consensuality, those elements shouldn't be tolerated. It doesn't follow that the culture is inherently bad, or that some kind of ill-defined British culture be actively promoted by the State instead.

I'd agree that immigrants ought to learn English, and about British history (if it must be taught at all...), but why should they be forced to give assent to things ("the flag") that British-born people didn't have to?

What I would add, however, is that, if cultural diversity is something to be cherished, and cultures that have developed over hundreds of years can disappear in a matter of decades, then it's damaging to merely adopt a laissez-faire attitude and 'let the market decide'. What an ironic position to find oneself in! So it may be that the State, while being ostensibly neutral, nonetheless finds it must defend threatened cultures in the name of diversity. How, though? The destruction of the old East End could serve as an example not to follow.

Anyway...

Here's another bit of tripe from The Times. Their conclusion?

Multiculturalism turned the bombers into members of the underclass, with no stake in society and no prospect of rescue. The policy must be ditched.

I think I'm rambling now, so will call it a day...

Update: David T on Britishness at Harry's.