Eugene Robinson, a Washington Post columnist who often writes about “diversity” and related issues, believes (really!) that the French riots prove that “multiculturalism works.”
His argument seems to be that since the French reject multiculturalism —
France essentially said to the immigrants: “Look, these are our ideals — liberty, equality, fraternity . We’re not adding diversity to the list.”
— it must be good.
Curiously, however, Robinson’s whole piece is devoted to pointing out how separate the Muslim immigrant communities in France are. This separation could be the result of French racism and discrimination, or it could be the result of the immigrants’ own desire to remain separate (or some combination). But whatever its source, the multiculturalism proposed by Robinson —
So let’s end all this “English-first” nonsense and embrace Spanish as our second language, since that’s what it is. Let’s learn more about those 5,000 years of Chinese history. Let’s have the dates of Ramadan and Eid noted on our calendars. Let’s remind ourselves of a big, important lesson that we’ve already learned, and that we can teach the world: Multiculturalism works.
— hardly seems like a solution.
On the contrary, the great American contribution to intergroup relations is the principle that here people should be treated without regard to their race, religion, or ethnicity. To abandon that is to abandon one of our core values, one that “works” far better than multiculturalism.
The sad thing is, Muticulturalism has a role, but it is difficult to see what that role is in France. The rioters, or at least some “spokespeople” have asked for Sharia rule, harldy multicultural.
Those who call for Multiculturalism usually only want it on one side (like the call for diversity). For example, acceptance of a veil, wife-beating, honor killing, etc. You never hear anyone asking a Moslem to accept civil rights for homosexuals, freedom of the press to the point of criticising Islam, etc.
What would Robinson say if an artist came out with “Piss Mohammed”?
Dom
“On the contrary, the great American contribution to intergroup relations is the principle that here people should be treated without regard to their race, religion, or ethnicity.”
THats the principle that france has used to create its uni-ethnic police and governmetn. Works wonders.
Learning more about everyone’s history means we’re diverse??????
I just thought it means we’re educated. Of course, then he might actually learn that no matter how small the world was, 1 big footprint was needed to keep peace and stability.
He can also learn more about everyone’s else’s history any time he wishes.
froggies have talked a good game for a couple of centuries now, but they can’t get out of monarchial mindset.
France, stuck on stupid since 1789.
“THats the principle that france has used to create its uni-ethnic police and governmetn. Works wonders.”
Actually, it did work wonders, even in France. The recent riots are the result of one immigrant class that totally rejects Multiculturalism. Ask an Algerian immigrant if they accept French or Hindu or Asian cultures.
Dom
” The rioters, or at least some “spokespeople” have asked for Sharia rule, harldy multicultural.”
It goes well with their rap music.
” Ask an Algerian immigrant if they accept French or Hindu or Asian cultures.”
Ask Diouf, or Sabeg. It wouldn’t surprise that they find unacceptable how they are treated.
So an elderly woman, confined to a wheel chair, was doused with gasoline and set on fire because the french don’t accept Diouf as french. A man was dragged from his car and beaten to death because the french don’t accept Sabeg as french.
Meanwhile, the Arab European League writes:
“So an elderly woman, confined to a wheel chair, was doused with gasoline and set on fire because the french don’t accept Diouf as french.”
I don’t think so. That would be a silly conclusion. Most of those people setting fires probably don’t know diouf
It’s important to have a working definition of the terms so we can have a consensus.
From Wikipedia:
>>>”Multiculturalism can also be a prescriptive term which describes government policy.
In dealing with immigrants groups and their cultures, there are essentially three approaches-
Monoculturalism: In most Old World nations, culture is very closely linked to nationalism, thus government policy is to assimilate immigrants. These countries have policies aiming at the social integration of immigrant groups to the national culture. This is typical of nations that define themselves as one and indivisible and do not recognize the existence of other nations within their midst.
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. However, many states have different language policies within the union.
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. Today, this is the official policy of Canada and Australia. Multiculturalism has been described as preserving a “cultural mosaic” of separate ethnic groups, and is contrasted to a “melting pot” that mixes them. This has also been described as the “salad bowl” model.
No country falls completely into one, or another, of these categories. For example, France has made efforts to adapt French culture to new immigrant groups, while Canada still has many policies that work to encourage assimilation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
“Treated people without regard to race” is not something described in any category regarding multiculturalism, and in fact, is something I’ve yet to see actually work in society. Perhaps somebody could, with sourced evidence, show me an example of a country where this concept is successful. In France, it has obviously failed.
–Cobra
Cobra has made a solid contribution here in putting up the three different types of policies.
My understanding, and some French-Muslim observers who have lived in the U.S for long-periods and are reporters in France have opined that the recent French explosion is precisely related to the failure of “multiculturalism” as a policy as opposed to the US model where there is more of a melting pot. They note that the French have facilitated segregated suburban communities based on ethnic identity, in the name of preserving those identities, and that this contributes to segregation and a feeling of, well, non-French identity.
This is (in part) a failure of multi-culturalism. It demonstrates the internal Balkanization that policies like preferences, segregation, and multi-culturalism (which is state-encouraged self-segregation, as opposed to the forced kinds like Jim Crow or Apartheid).
France’s present is the possible American future we are fighting to prevent in our struggle against preferences.
“France’s present is the possible American future we are fighting to prevent in our struggle against preferences.”
Ah, but what france needs is preferences: preferences which will diversify the cops, the judiciary and the legislature, so that power will represent those that it has dominion over. Preferences lead to mixing, rather than segregation and subjugation.
I was under the impression that preferences lead to resentment and a general feeling of inequality that in turn leads to things like riots.
Gyp writes:
>>>”I was under the impression that preferences lead to resentment and a general feeling of inequality that in turn leads to things like riots.”
I’ll actually agree with you here, in the sense that I believe preferences exist in society whether they are officially instituted or acknowleged. The trick in achieving a society that at least attempts to be fair, IMHO, is to acknowlege the pre-existant preferences and provide remedies for those adversely affected by them. When there are no checks and balances to the original preference, we begin to see the problems that plague any non-homogenous society.
Chetly writes:
>>>”They note that the French have facilitated segregated suburban communities based on ethnic identity, in the name of preserving those identities, and that this contributes to segregation and a feeling of, well, non-French identity.”
I think we both agree somewhat on the symptoms of this malady. I would go further in stating that “segregated suburban communities” are not exclusively French issues…a point I’ve made on several occasions here at “Discriminations.”
I believe our American melting pot was a far greater success for immigrants of European ancestry than others, which is one of the reasons we as Americans have seen our share of riots in our lifetimes.
–Cobra
“The trick in achieving a society that at least attempts to be fair, IMHO, is to acknowlege the pre-existant preferences and provide remedies for those adversely affected by them.”
This is where we disagree. I think that the best way to solve this problem is to find all places where preferences exist, whether they’re acknowledged or unacknowledged, and get rid of them. Hard to put out a fire with gasoline.
Cobra,
The idea that AA would help a country depends on that country having some sort of freedom in which to exercise the benefits of AA. In the US, the minority groups that have not had preferences and AA have greatly benefit from a relatively free society and from having a capitalist, free market economy. Such countries reward sweat equity and innitiative. However, in France, the only real path to upperward mobility is government employment. Thus, the immigrants groups have to compete against cronyism, nepotism, and discrimination much more than in the US.
Thus, if France wants its immigrant and minority groups to success, it should open its economy and get the heavy hand of government out of the economy.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>”In the US, the minority groups that have not had preferences and AA have greatly benefit from a relatively free society and from having a capitalist, free market economy.”
That’s not the history of America as I recollect. If anything, statistics and studies show that there is STILL discrimination against minority groups despite preference programs and AA, so eliminating those afforementioned items would result in an even WORSE situation for those said groups.
Now, of course the standard, boiler-plate reply to that statement would be, “there are anti-discrimination laws on the books…anyone who feels discriminated against should take it up in the courts..etc.”
Even this option is in peril with the likes of Machine Gun Alito poised to march on the Supreme Court, and other conservative forces who seek to make discrimination lawsuits nearly impossible to pursue. It’s an attack on minorities from two flanks.
–Cobra
Cobra,
How many want to remember that Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Pakistani, Indians, etc are all still minorities (even if the NAACP does not count them as minorities) and they have greatly benefited from the freedom of the US. They have gone to school, worked hard, and managed to outperform the average of American. Especially, they have managed to massively outperform African-Americans and Hispanics in education, employment, and economics.
It could be aruged that black americans have been held back by AA and quotas instead of benefitting from them. Look at the percentage of government who are black versus the percentage of IT workers who are black.
“Especially, they have managed to massively outperform African-Americans and Hispanics in education, employment, and economics.”
How do they compare once we control for the educational level of the immigrating generation?
actus,
How do they compare once we control for the educational level of the immigrating generation?
I don’t know, and it might be interesting to find out. But the point is that colleges generally don’t give a leg up to all children of non-English-speaking immigrants whose parents don’t have college degrees (which might actually make sense). They give the leg up to children of parents of particular ethnic backgrounds, however well off or educated the parents are
Do you know the history of the Chinese immigrants of the 19th c.? It is terrible. It was not slavery, but it was pretty close. You of course know all about the Japanese internment camps. The Vietnamese suffered terribly during the war, and the Vietnamese here today are largely people who had to flee when our war failed.
I fail to see why all these should be shut out of affirmative action when recent Mexican immigrants can take advantage of it. Can you suggest any justification at all?
“Monoculturalism: In most Old World nations, culture is very closely linked to nationalism, thus government policy is to assimilate immigrants.”
Monoculturalism is a good definition of the culture in most Moslem countries, especially Saudi Arabia, where it is customary to arrest an immigrant or “guest” if non-moslem material is found.
“Today, this [multiculturalism] is the official policy of Canada and Australia.”
Australians recently arrested a group of moslems who were plotting a terrorist attack.
Dom
‘I fail to see why all these should be shut out of affirmative action when recent Mexican immigrants can take advantage of it. Can you suggest any justification at all?’
Nope. I think its should be based on generalized meanings of disadvantage, and not so much on other things like academic prowess and legacy status.
Of course, that’s ignoring the diversity argument.
actus,
Ooookay.
[me:] ‘I fail to see why all these should be shut out of affirmative action when recent Mexican immigrants can take advantage of it. Can you suggest any justification at all?’
[actus:] Nope. I think its should be based on generalized meanings of disadvantage, and not so much on other things like academic prowess and legacy status.
I must be misunderstanding something, actus, because I’ve never heard of affirmative action based on academic prowess. I think you probably meant “athletic prowess,” but honestly I’m not sure.
‘ I think you probably meant “athletic prowess,” but honestly I’m not sure.’
Oops. you’re right.
Michelle writes:
>>>Do you know the history of the Chinese immigrants of the 19th c.? It is terrible. It was not slavery, but it was pretty close. You of course know all about the Japanese internment camps. The Vietnamese suffered terribly during the war, and the Vietnamese here today are largely people who had to flee when our war failed.”
Which ethnic group in America was in control of the policy making decisions in ALL OF THOSE SITUATIONS?
When you answer that question, then we can come to a conclusion about endorsing actions that ultimately benefit the very same ethnic group that has habitually committed the afforementioned policy decisions you show distaste for.
–Cobra
“When you answer that question, then we can come to a conclusion about endorsing actions that ultimately benefit the very same ethnic group that has habitually committed the afforementioned policy decisions you show distaste for.”
Really, that makes no sense. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the white majority, in a white majority country, was responsible for its decisions. Would the decisions have been better had there been a black majority? Who controlled Sudan during the Darfur massacre? Or during the civil war prior to that? Who controlled Zimbabwe during the great starvation that is now taking place? Who controlled Uganda under Amin’s misrule? Who controlled Rwanda during the genocide?
And which ethnic group passed civil rights legislation, including AA? Those who want to see AA disappear — and I am one of them — do so not because it will benefit whites (I don’t see that it will do that in any large numbers anyway), but because it is a gross violation of anyone’s sense of decency, and ultimately it is harmful to the people it is supposed to aid.
In any case, you completely missed Michelle’s point, which is a very good one.
Dom
Cobra,
Which ethnic group in America was in control of the policy making decisions in ALL OF THOSE SITUATIONS?
Oh, I see. I point out that groups B, C, and D have suffered historically from discriminatory or oppressive treatment, and you point out that it was A that did the discriminating — which apparently is justification for socking it to not only A but also B, C, and D, in order to benefit E. Pardon my not quite understanding how this works.
Actus, have you switched sides?
You write:
Nope. I think its should be based on generalized meanings of disadvantage, and not so much on other things like academic [intended athletic] prowess and legacy status.
Sounds like socio-economic preferences. No need for race to be measured there. As to legacy, the record is clear that I oppose them, and I think the record is clear that if race preferences disappear that legacy will follow shortly thereafter based upon their own weight. Unfortunately, there are legal rules against addressing more than one object in a reform, and there is a body of precedent related to race, gender, and national origin that links those categories generally as a single object. The whole initiative would have been at risk had we tried hit it all. As to athletic preferences, athleticism and musical ability, for example, are types of merit, and, ironically, minorities “benefit” (or are taken advantage of if you perceive the university athletic system as corrupt) more from them than other groups, statistically. Personally, although there is nothing necessarily immoral with the idea of athleticism as a measure of merit, I think the current system goes too far and that universities are taking advantage of student-athletes in a systematic, collusive, and pervasive way and not giving them a fair education in return. Student athletics should be vastly overhauled. Indeed, the preferences student athletes receive and their relative statistical failure to succeed academically should demonstrate why preferences of all kinds are destructive to the recipient. Athletic preferences are just the most extreme distortion in terms of the special programs, lower graduation rates, etc.