| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Multiculturalism will eat itself |
| 2014-01-13 |
| NADEEM F. PARACHA Pracha's rapidly becoming one of my favorite writers. [DAWN] ... multiculturalism in the West emerged with full force and peaked in the mid-2000s when it became institutionalised in various Western countries. The idea was to demonstrate and welcome cultural diversity and draw from various cultures their finest economic, sporting and artistic dynamics, and to respect (rather than suspect) their distinctiveness. This was to be done for the benefit of the countries of which the men and women of different nations had come to settle and work in. However, facts are stubborn; statistics are more pliable... some two decades after the arrival of multiculturalism in the West, it has started to be questioned and even derided for creating political and social turmoil now in various Western countries. So what happened? Multiculturalism invited diversity and promised to give it respect. This part was well understood by most non-Westerners who had arrived in Western countries and appreciated a new openness in their attitudes. But the other aspect of multiculturalism was about forming unity through diversity, for which it required people from different religious and cultural backgrounds to wholeheartedly interact and integrate with the overall cultural dynamics of the society that they had chosen to be a part of. This aspect seemed to have gone missing in the attitudes of a number of men and women who have otherwise made full use of multiculturalism's tolerant ways in countries where they have settled. Instead of even nominally integrating into a multicultural society, many have simply used it to ghettoise themselves, refusing to learn the adopted country's prevalent language or exhibit a similar respect towards the country's cultural norms. It's become a one-way traffic, in which foreign cultures in a multicultural country would ghettoise themselves, but throw up their arms and complain of being discriminated against if asked to integrate. Usually critics of multiculturalism just grumble if a people from a different community demonstrate this kind of behaviour. However, some people cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go... things get terribly sensitive when a community uses the principles of multiculturalism to settle in Western societies; but after ghettoising itself, it not only begins to describe the demand of integration as an attack on its cultural moorings, but even threatens to respond with violence. This dilemma seems to be particularly testing in the UK. Though not alone in triggering the ghettoisation fall-out of multiculturalism, the South Asian Moslem communities in the UK seem to be one of the leading exponents of cultural segregation. As Moslem nations across the world were flushed with petro-dollars from conservative oil-rich monarchies from the late 1974 onwards, Moslem societies saw a surge in religious conservatism. The surge's impact was also felt by the Moslem diaspora in non-Moslem countries. During the heyday of multiculturalism the South Asian Moslem community in Europe, US and Canada treated it as a licence to retreat into a myopic mode and shun integration. Some other Asian communities like the Chinese and the Koreans for example, can also be accused of the same, but they did not do what the South Asian Moslems did. In the last many years one keeps reading about how mosques in some prominent European countries are being used to entice the young Moslem diaspora to attack symbols of moral corruption, sin and vulgarity in the very countries where this diaspora was allowed to settle and earn its livelihood. Liberal and secular principles ingrained in the adopted countries' socio-political set up are being challenged and even attempted to be brought in line with the agitated diaspora's idea of morality. What's more, it is also being noticed that when members of this particular South Asian Moslem community return to their countries of origin for a visit, they scorn at the lax attitude of their countrymen towards faith and morality. They want their surroundings to be according to what they believe is the correct path. And if they are not, then the surroundings need to be infused with their idea of righteousness. By force, if necessary. This is the same attitude that is emerging in the Pak middle classes as well. There are numerous young Moslems in South Asia who have what it takes to strike a constructive give-and-take deal with Western multicultural societies. And they are likely to flourish in many fields in those more open lands. But their path is being sullied by the irresponsible, selfish and ghettoised behaviour and mindset of their contemporaries who, unlike them, have managed to find a spot in these countries but are hell bent on destroying the very idea that first gave them the chance to demonstrate their cultural identities there. Multiculturalism has become the new white man's burden, and thus a weapon in the hands of those who plan to devour its most tolerant and progressive notions with their fanaticism to impose their own skewed and myopic beliefs. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #11 |
| Posted by: Thor Guelph2538 2014-01-13 18:57 |
| #10 It worked for the Western Roman Empire... Oh yeah, not so much. |
| Posted by: mossomo 2014-01-13 17:52 |
| #9 Do you get multiculturalism in muslim countries? |
| Posted by: Voldemort Thranter2866 2014-01-13 17:34 |
| #8 The elites pulled a fast one by replacing multi-ethnic society (which the west had going well with the Melting pot idea) with Multicultural society which is devisive and cannot stand. They are doing the same by conflating immigration wtih illegal immigration and most of the time they are getting away with it. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2014-01-13 15:05 |
| #7 The assertion, under force of law, that all cultures are 'equal and deserving of adoption and respect'. Bullshit. In implementation however it was much the way BP describes it. Funny how only the west had to be 'multicultural' and the others, particular the Radical Islamic States and those people who immigrated (or illegally entered) from them were exempt. So were the elitists. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2014-01-13 14:39 |
| #6 >The idea was to demonstrate and welcome cultural diversity and draw from various cultures their finest economic, sporting and artistic dynamics, and to respect (rather than suspect) their distinctiveness. Rubbish. The idea was for oikophobes to laud it over those they hate whilst looting their public via rents (raised by immigration). |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2014-01-13 14:10 |
| #5 Yea, but it will eat us first. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-01-13 12:01 |
| #4 Define multiculturalism, Bet you can't, I can't. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2014-01-13 11:13 |
| #3 Excellent analogy. Thanks John. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-01-13 09:59 |
| #2 This guy (Roy Beck and the gumball analogy) thinks immigrants should stay home and build their own economies to dig the world out of poverty. Roy Beck and his gumballs |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-01-13 09:49 |
| #1 Multiculturalism was always intended to be disruptive. |
| Posted by: Tiny Speaking for Boskone4184 2014-01-13 09:46 |