Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Culturists Can Win the Battle with Multiculturalists!
Cultural conservatives have been losing the war of words. The multiculturalist slogan “celebrate diversity” has become the official motto of western governments. If you dare mention the real impacts of diversity you get called a racist. Thus, having discussions about important political issues concerning cultural diversity has become frightening. “Culturism” and “culturist” are new words that can help us defeat the multiculturalists and those who stop conversations with the word “racist.”
We can win arguments with multiculturalists because they do not really take cultural diversity seriously. Some cultures value education more than others, some believe in jihad, some engage in polygamy, cliterectomies and honor killings. Some encourage repeated teen pregnancy. Some do not support the right of women to wear what they want. Multiculturalists argue that cultural diversity is limited to food, fashion and festivals. Culturists can supply ample evidence to the contrary.
Multiculturalists not really believing cultural diversity blinds them to the fact that western values are not universal. Freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, democracy, rights (including those for women and gays), and fighting racism are NOT universal beliefs. A quick look for these values around the globe will confirm that these are only western values. Getting multiculturalists to admit that these are rare and recently created values is the first step to their recovery.
Of course, if you try to talk to multiculturalists about cultural diversity, they will call you racist. Their instincts have some merit. Racism is stupid and dangerous; it can divide and destroy us. That said, we must be able to talk frankly about cultural issues. If we fail to win conversations in this arena, we can lose our civilization. Our first, and not so difficult task, is to get our opponents to admit that race and culture are two different things. There are fun ways to go about this, but, once done, using the words culturism and culturist helps them to keep the distinction in mind.
After we establish that we are only talking about culture, we can, for once, put multiculturalists on the defensive. Do they really want to argue that cultural diversity is unimportant and that all countries accept western values? In fact, multiculturalists have committed themselves to acknowledging diversity. If they now argue that culture is not important, they have to give up being multiculturalists. If they admit that some cultures do cliterectomies and they do not want to defend those practices, they are no longer celebrating diversity; they are judging values based on western cultural norms– they are culturists!
Culturism holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. When they say this idea is outrageous, appeal to their love of diversity. Saudi Arabia does not let non-Muslims or their symbols into their nation. A culturist would not begrudge them that. China is a racist, nationalist country without democracy. Culturists acknowledge China’s rights. Would a multiculturalist fan of diversity begrudge another culture the right to define, protect and promote its unique cultural vision? No! If they do judge other nations, attack them as imperialists. But once admitting to respecting other nation’s rights, ask them why it is only immoral and outrageous for western nations to be culturist. They will be dumbfounded.
At this point we can lay the hammer on them. Rights are not universal. They only come from cultures that believe in them and can afford them. You, my multiculturalist friend, cannot become a citizen of Japan or go to university in Gambia (they don’t have one). If western nations go under, rights will not continue to exist in some metaphysical realm. To protect rights, we have to protect western nations. This will require making cultural distinctions a legitimate policy concern. To protect rights we, in short, have to become culturist.
If your opponent still sputters about racism, provide them with the following example. Although approximately of the same complexion, Islamic culture antagonizes western values more than Hinduism does. Stopping immigration from Islamic countries and not from India is, therefore, not racist, it is culturist. Rather than defensively denying we are racist, the words culturism and culturist allow us to stand for rights, separation of church and state and other beloved western values. To win the rhetorical battle, we must identify ourselves as culturists and promote culturism as an alternative to multiculturalism. Do it today!
We can win arguments with multiculturalists because they do not really take cultural diversity seriously. Some cultures value education more than others, some believe in jihad, some engage in polygamy, cliterectomies and honor killings. Some encourage repeated teen pregnancy. Some do not support the right of women to wear what they want. Multiculturalists argue that cultural diversity is limited to food, fashion and festivals. Culturists can supply ample evidence to the contrary.
Multiculturalists not really believing cultural diversity blinds them to the fact that western values are not universal. Freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, democracy, rights (including those for women and gays), and fighting racism are NOT universal beliefs. A quick look for these values around the globe will confirm that these are only western values. Getting multiculturalists to admit that these are rare and recently created values is the first step to their recovery.
Of course, if you try to talk to multiculturalists about cultural diversity, they will call you racist. Their instincts have some merit. Racism is stupid and dangerous; it can divide and destroy us. That said, we must be able to talk frankly about cultural issues. If we fail to win conversations in this arena, we can lose our civilization. Our first, and not so difficult task, is to get our opponents to admit that race and culture are two different things. There are fun ways to go about this, but, once done, using the words culturism and culturist helps them to keep the distinction in mind.
After we establish that we are only talking about culture, we can, for once, put multiculturalists on the defensive. Do they really want to argue that cultural diversity is unimportant and that all countries accept western values? In fact, multiculturalists have committed themselves to acknowledging diversity. If they now argue that culture is not important, they have to give up being multiculturalists. If they admit that some cultures do cliterectomies and they do not want to defend those practices, they are no longer celebrating diversity; they are judging values based on western cultural norms– they are culturists!
Culturism holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. When they say this idea is outrageous, appeal to their love of diversity. Saudi Arabia does not let non-Muslims or their symbols into their nation. A culturist would not begrudge them that. China is a racist, nationalist country without democracy. Culturists acknowledge China’s rights. Would a multiculturalist fan of diversity begrudge another culture the right to define, protect and promote its unique cultural vision? No! If they do judge other nations, attack them as imperialists. But once admitting to respecting other nation’s rights, ask them why it is only immoral and outrageous for western nations to be culturist. They will be dumbfounded.
At this point we can lay the hammer on them. Rights are not universal. They only come from cultures that believe in them and can afford them. You, my multiculturalist friend, cannot become a citizen of Japan or go to university in Gambia (they don’t have one). If western nations go under, rights will not continue to exist in some metaphysical realm. To protect rights, we have to protect western nations. This will require making cultural distinctions a legitimate policy concern. To protect rights we, in short, have to become culturist.
If your opponent still sputters about racism, provide them with the following example. Although approximately of the same complexion, Islamic culture antagonizes western values more than Hinduism does. Stopping immigration from Islamic countries and not from India is, therefore, not racist, it is culturist. Rather than defensively denying we are racist, the words culturism and culturist allow us to stand for rights, separation of church and state and other beloved western values. To win the rhetorical battle, we must identify ourselves as culturists and promote culturism as an alternative to multiculturalism. Do it today!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Hollinger's "postethnic" ideal and culturism
David Hollinger’s Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism is one of the most famous books on diversity in academia today. Hollinger seeks to gently guide us away from the excesses of multiculturalism, without abandoning our modern appreciation of cultural pluralism. But he does not really guide us anywhere. Rather than going "beyond multiculturalism," we need to turn in a culturist direction.
His term “Postethnic” denotes a concept by which we can both maintain and transcend our heritage. The “ethnic” part recognizes that there is some diversity and allows you to choose to identify with it. The “post” part means you recognize that the ethnic identites are not solid. I share his enthusiasm for ethnic intermarriage and agree that the government should ditch ethnicity boxes on its forms. But his "postethnic" idea is too easy. He is really just a fancy multiculturalist.
Hollinger says, to avoid balkanization, we need to have culturally neutral “civic nations." Herein, he commits a serious multiculturalist fallacy. The West has a culture. Democracy, separation of church and state, freedom of speech and thinking females should have rights are not universal. The multicultural idea that Western nations are just neutral spaces for random cultures to congregate denies our heritage and undermines our soveriegnty.
Hollinger notes that warrior Masai masters treat their women with less respect than cattle. Clitoridectomy and Saudi values do not accord with those of western feminists. But once people with such values move here, Hollinger assures us that we will be able to talk them into human rights culture via “intersubjective reason.” This means all diversity will naturally and quickly give way to Western values without any culturist policies because diversity is apparent, but not real.
Unlike multiculturalists, culturism takes culture seriously. Basic cultural disagreements exist and conflict happens. Some cultures value education less than others. Some prize big families that start at early ages. Some cultures have seriously anti-Western values. Some believe in polygamy. Some cultures applaud criminality, some are violent. Hollinger's idea that "we can all just get along" because competition and diversity don't really exist, is false.
If people from a country or region are not assimilating or are promoting anti-Western values, we must stop them from immigrating. Schools must enforce consequences for teen pregnancy and disrespect or expect both. Our public media need to send a message by not broadcasting anti-social music. We should try not to subsidize competing nations via technology transfers, trade deficits or foreign aid. The "celebrate diversity" mantra of Hollinger and multiculturalists is not enough. We need pro-active culturist laws that show we value our culture or we may lose it.
His term “Postethnic” denotes a concept by which we can both maintain and transcend our heritage. The “ethnic” part recognizes that there is some diversity and allows you to choose to identify with it. The “post” part means you recognize that the ethnic identites are not solid. I share his enthusiasm for ethnic intermarriage and agree that the government should ditch ethnicity boxes on its forms. But his "postethnic" idea is too easy. He is really just a fancy multiculturalist.
Hollinger says, to avoid balkanization, we need to have culturally neutral “civic nations." Herein, he commits a serious multiculturalist fallacy. The West has a culture. Democracy, separation of church and state, freedom of speech and thinking females should have rights are not universal. The multicultural idea that Western nations are just neutral spaces for random cultures to congregate denies our heritage and undermines our soveriegnty.
Hollinger notes that warrior Masai masters treat their women with less respect than cattle. Clitoridectomy and Saudi values do not accord with those of western feminists. But once people with such values move here, Hollinger assures us that we will be able to talk them into human rights culture via “intersubjective reason.” This means all diversity will naturally and quickly give way to Western values without any culturist policies because diversity is apparent, but not real.
Unlike multiculturalists, culturism takes culture seriously. Basic cultural disagreements exist and conflict happens. Some cultures value education less than others. Some prize big families that start at early ages. Some cultures have seriously anti-Western values. Some believe in polygamy. Some cultures applaud criminality, some are violent. Hollinger's idea that "we can all just get along" because competition and diversity don't really exist, is false.
If people from a country or region are not assimilating or are promoting anti-Western values, we must stop them from immigrating. Schools must enforce consequences for teen pregnancy and disrespect or expect both. Our public media need to send a message by not broadcasting anti-social music. We should try not to subsidize competing nations via technology transfers, trade deficits or foreign aid. The "celebrate diversity" mantra of Hollinger and multiculturalists is not enough. We need pro-active culturist laws that show we value our culture or we may lose it.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)