|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: Cultivating diversity is playing with fire |
 |
|
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/02/george-jonas-cultivating-diversity-is-playing-with-fire.aspx
| Quote: |
Typing �celebrating diversity� on my keyboard yields over 200,000 hits on the Internet. Educational programs of this title are being offered from Iowa to Illinois to Ontario. Is this good news? I�m as diverse as the next person, but I don�t think so.
Tolerating diversity is good. It�s fire prevention; it�s what fire fighters do. Cultivating diversity is playing with fire. It�s bad; it�s what pyromaniacs do. Not understanding the difference is the multicultural fallacy.
To belong to an ethnic/religious minority is to be an outsider, and to be an outsider is never desirable. Unlike being a select minority � a celebrity, say, or a billionaire � which can be desirable even if it comes with a price tag, being an ethnic/religious minority comes with a price tag and little else. It�s potentially traumatic under the best of circumstances � say, contemporary Canada � and can be deadly under the worst, such as Nazi-occupied Europe, where I first experienced it.
Everybody is a minority on Earth, even groups as populous as the Chinese, so one could describe being a minority as a natural condition. Only living in our own nation-states masks our minority or �outsider� status in global terms, permitting us to feel like insiders. As long as we�re Chinese living in China or Dutch living in Holland, we don�t have to be conscious of being a global minority (though the Dutch of �Eurabia� are becoming more conscious every day).
We�re all global minorities, even if we�re a majority in our own countries. It�s possible to live on the planet without living in China, but it�s not possible to live in China without living on the planet. That�s hardly news � but often what everybody knows is the slowest to sink in.
Diversity is no organizing principle; it�s a fact of existence. It�s part of the human condition. It�s neither to be swept under the carpet nor to be run up the flagpole. It�s neither the solvent of nationhood nor its glue. For immigrant nations such as Canada it�s a reality to cope with, accept and turn to advantage if possible. It isn�t something to aim for, celebrate, cherish or try to etch in stone.
Some people are born minorities; others are self-made. Some achieve their outsider status freely, and others have to work for it. Pasquale, a man I know, having been born in Verona, Italy, had to emigrate before he could make his debut as a minority in Canada. Another man I know, Pascal, having been born in Quebec City, didn�t have to move a muscle. He was a minority in Canada from the word go.
Guess which one felt more alienated by his status as an outsider? Guess which one supported the breakup of Canada when I interviewed him? Right. It wasn�t Pasquale.
Choosing to become a minority by emigration, or even exile, makes minority-status easier to bear than being born a minority in one�s own country. It�s common for minorities to be second-class citizens, real or perceived. It always hurts, but it�s less hurtful to experience being a B-list person abroad, in emigration or exile, than in one�s home and native land. Promoting and perpetuating diversity puts the heaviest burden on the children and grandchildren of immigrants.
Sometimes, rarely, minorities become the privileged circles of other people�s countries and cultures, and govern the natives as, say, tiny British minorities used to govern Rhodesia or India. But a ruling Raj is the exception, not the rule. For ethnic and religious minorities (�outsiders�), the rule is to be either persecuted or tolerated by native majorities (�insiders.�) They�re tolerated in good countries such as Canada, and persecuted in bad ones such as the Third Reich. The difference is enormous � it�s life and death � but tolerated people are still outsiders by definition, and being made to feel an outsider is never pleasant. However � and this is the point � it�s easier to countenance when one is, in fact, an outsider.
We accept being outsiders in someone else�s country more easily than in our own, and we regard the country in which we�re born as ours (with considerable justification, I might add.) That�s why, if unassimilated �diverse� communities produce misfits, malcontents, traitors or outright terrorists, they�re more likely to produce them in the second or third generation. The jihadist is the native son rather than the immigrant father. (�If you can�t join �em,� one said when interviewed, �lick �em.�)
A nation of outsiders is a clash waiting to happen. Diversity tolerated is mature; diversity cultivated is juvenile. In the long run, societies either integrate or disintegrate. The melting pot may be inelegant but it�s functional; the cultural mosaic is elegant but it�s risky and multiculturalism spells, �Hi, folks, welcome to Lebanon.� Emphasizing diversity over integration bequeaths a legacy of civil conflict to one�s children.
Worshipping diversity is driving forward with eyes glued to the rear view mirror. Diversity accommodated is dandy, but diversity perpetuated is a recipe for turning multicultural Canada, once described by the writer Hugh MacLennan as a nation of two solitudes, into a multisolitudinal nation. |
I agree.
The Canadian multi-culties drone on about how our "mosaic" is like "the world". Well, after 5 years in "the world" I don't think that is such a good idea. Canada is a model, "the world" isn't. But we will become like the world, both in diversity and dysfunction. Multiculturalism will ruin Canada. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| being offered from Iowa to Illinois |
I had to smile at that one. 
All the way from Buda to Pest? Somehow that just fails to do what the author intended.
It seems to me if you take an 8 year old and teach him about various new year customs around the world, the 'celebration' may well have 'tolerant' results. Learning about differences can also emphasize the commonalities.
Living in Korea has taught me how nice it is when the majority shows a bit of sensitivity to my minority status and condition. A little PCness goes a long way in making me feel better.
[I think maybe a more apt reference might have been: from Minnesota to Louisiana...Florida to Alaska] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Living in Korea has taught me how nice it is when the majority shows a bit of sensitivity to my minority status and condition. A little PCness goes a long way in making me feel better. |
That's exactly what he said:
| Quote: |
| Tolerating diversity is good. It�s fire prevention; it�s what fire fighters do. Cultivating diversity is playing with fire. It�s bad; it�s what pyromaniacs do. Not understanding the difference is the multicultural fallacy. |
His, and my, opinion is that going out of our way to build a diverse society as a goal (as it is in Canada) is a path with very questionable justification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can agree that an excess of PCness is bad, but I kept waiting for the author to acknowledge that the complete absence of it is even worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I can agree that an excess of PCness is bad, but I kept waiting for the author to acknowledge that the complete absence of it is even worse. |
So you missed the many times in the article where the author stated that tolerating diversity is mature, important, necessary, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nope. Read it and dismissed it as wholly inadequate as I pointed out. I'm aware of far more eruptions of intolerance in daily life than the occassional outburst of excessive PC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Nope. Read it and dismissed it as wholly inadequate as I pointed out. I'm aware of far more eruptions of intolerance in daily life than the occassional outburst of excessive PC. |
The article isn't about "tolerance" or PC. The article is an attack on Canada's desire to create within our nation a microcosm of "The World". That is, diversity as an end, in and of itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Nope. Read it and dismissed it as wholly inadequate as I pointed out. I'm aware of far more eruptions of intolerance in daily life than the occassional outburst of excessive PC. |
The article isn't about "tolerance" or PC. The article is an attack on Canada's desire to create within our nation a microcosm of "The World". That is, diversity as an end, in and of itself. |
Just so non-Canadians understand the debate...
Since the late 1960s, the Canadian government has pursued a policy of official multiculturalism. Now, we're not just talking about a bunch of Italians getting together at someone's house to cook linguini every week. Official multiculturalism means that organizations purporting to represent Italians(or any other group) can apply for grants from the government to pursue whatever activities they think are important to their culture. (Arts, language study, etc.)
Furthermore, since 1982, Canada's supposed multicultural nature has been mentioned in the constitution as a mitigating factor in the interpretation of laws. "Monoculturalists", for lack of a better word, used to fret that this would lead to lawyers arguing a legal right to engage in(let's say) honour killings, or at least that judges should take culture into account when issuing sentences for such crimes. But so far, from what I can tell, the courts have given a pretty clear middle-finger to those who try to argue that line.
My own view is that the state-funded song-and-dance variety of multiculturalism is a bit of a financial sinkhole, producing nebulous benefits, but is ultimately pretty much harmless. I think the cynics were onto something when they argued that it was originally intended as an ethnic vote-getter for the Liberal Party Of Canada, though I can report that Tory-voting Ukranians in Edmonton benefit from the policy as well.
I don't subscribe to the idea, common in newbies' ESL lectures, that Canada is a mosaic as opposed to a melting-pot. As long as everyone is answering to the same set of laws, any official recognition of minority cultures is purely cosmetic.
Full disclosure: I owe my analysis of Canadian multiculturalism largely to a sociology professor who taught a course on the topic during my university years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Appreciation goes out to OTOH for adding to the picture vis-a-vis Canada. I've always felt strange about granting financial assistance to groups based on ethnicity and little else.
I think "celebrating diversity," as a goal, is not quite the same as "promoting" it. The former merely acknowledges what is true and attempts to counteract biases that often make people who come from subcultures outside the mainstream feel as if they are inferior merely and only due to their minority status.
I don't see anything wrong with telling people, especially kids, something like:
"You are Canadian (or American or Brit or Aussie) now, even though you come from Jamaican people, and even though you look different from the average person around here, you are no worse than anyone, because that's how we live together in this place. Your differentness is part of the strength that makes all of us better off here, and you can be as proud of these things as others are proud of the things they have in common with similar people who are themselves different from the mainstream."
And I do think that heterogeneous societies are better off than those in which everyone is pretty much the same - as long as the majority of people can see that the subgroups ARE still part of the larger society. I think that Brazil and America and the UK and Canada are stronger societies, despite the conflicts and challenges, than say, Saudi Arabia and the ROK. Iraq fell apart in about a day and a half after Saddam's despotism was no longer holding things together, and S Korea's inability to view the world in any other way than the Han way has and will continue to offer far more problems on the world stage than anything else.
What happens with multiculturalism is that people get afraid - the people from the mainstream, that is, who see things as a zero-sum game where they will lose something if things change from the ways they have been in the past.
That's too bad, because things change anyway, you see. The good news is that we can decide HOW they change, within reason, and that makes more sense than just trying to stop it.
Here's sort of an example, from the article in the OP:
| Quote: |
| We accept being outsiders in someone else�s country more easily than in our own, and we regard the country in which we�re born as ours (with considerable justification, I might add.) |
The question needs to be asked: who does the "we" pronoun refer to? Well, the European-descended mainstream, of course, and precisely no one else. It is the voice of fear, and the rest of the paragraph follows that fear to its source in our post-9/11 psyche.
| Quote: |
| That�s why, if unassimilated �diverse� communities produce misfits, malcontents, traitors or outright terrorists, they�re more likely to produce them in the second or third generation. The jihadist is the native son rather than the immigrant father. (�If you can�t join �em,� one said when interviewed, �lick �em.�) |
Two other sentences deserve mention because of the incongruities that probably reflect the scattered mindset of the writer - they are exactly one paragraph separated from each other:
| Quote: |
| To belong to an ethnic/religious minority is to be an outsider, and to be an outsider is never desirable. |
and
| Quote: |
| Everybody is a minority on Earth, even groups as populous as the Chinese, so one could describe being a minority as a natural condition. |
And he goes on to suggest that the only for people to live on the same planet who are different from one another is for them to keep to their own separate countries, fenced off and tolerant of one another only because distance makes it easy.
And me, I can't help but feel sad for the guy.
He hasn't figured out that as the world continues to shrink due to increased communication and travel, it is the countries who already have disparate groups within them that will benefit because their own heads have already come to terms with the fact that others are different and that it's not a bad thing - one guess is that he'd like to see Canada and Quebec become separate nations and that each part will resemble Korea and Saudi Arabia more than the places they are now. And I just can't see how that would be an improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Tolerating diversity is good. It�s fire prevention; it�s what fire fighters do. Cultivating diversity is playing with fire. It�s bad; it�s what pyromaniacs do. Not understanding the difference is the multicultural fallacy. |
My old man's life maxim was "always fight fire with fire". However, it was his stubborn adherence to this principle which contributed to him being thrown out of the fire service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think that Brazil and America and the UK and Canada are stronger societies, despite the conflicts and challenges, than say, Saudi Arabia and the ROK. Iraq fell apart in about a day and a half after Saddam's despotism was no longer holding things together, and S Korea's inability to view the world in any other way than the Han way has and will continue to offer far more problems on the world stage than anything else. |
You could also list Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and many other nations as examples of the folly of promoting multiculturalism. Pluralism and accepting differences is fine, promoting multiculturalism, particularly between opposing cultural traditions is deeply flawed and will possibly lead to wide spread civil conflict.
Will 'multicultural' (or more likely 'bicultural' between Arab Muslim and European) France in 30 years time, be as stable and prosperous a place as it's former more homogeneous, less 'vibrant' and less 'diverse' counterpart.
| Quote: |
| He hasn't figured out that as the world continues to shrink due to increased communication and travel, it is the countries who already have disparate groups within them that will benefit because their own heads have already come to terms with the fact that others are different and that it's not a bad thing |
This is exactly the sort of meaningless platitudes that proponents of multiculturalism are so fond of. In fact, if you look around the globe at all the countries that already have 'disparate groups within them', many of them are racked with ethnic conflict and sectarian violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
You could also list Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and many other nations as examples of the folly of promoting multiculturalism. Pluralism and accepting differences is fine, promoting multiculturalism, particularly between opposing cultural traditions is deeply flawed and will possibly lead to wide spread civil conflict.
|
Please explain why you use Northern Ireland as an example of the dangers of multiculturalism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
You could also list Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and many other nations as examples of the folly of promoting multiculturalism. Pluralism and accepting differences is fine, promoting multiculturalism, particularly between opposing cultural traditions is deeply flawed and will possibly lead to wide spread civil conflict.
|
Please explain why you use Northern Ireland as an example of the dangers of multiculturalism? |
If the British had not transplanted thousands of Scottish and English protestants to Ulster, the ethnic conflict that claimed thousands of lives would never have transpired. Creating ethnic, religious and cultural divides, which is what multiculturalism leads to is inherently dangerous. The massive influx of Muslims into Europe over the past 30 years will likely lead to similar problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
My own view is that the state-funded song-and-dance variety of multiculturalism is a bit of a financial sinkhole, producing nebulous benefits, but is ultimately pretty much harmless. I think the cynics were onto something when they argued that it was originally intended as an ethnic vote-getter for the Liberal Party Of Canada, though I can report that Tory-voting Ukranians in Edmonton benefit from the policy as well.
I don't subscribe to the idea, common in newbies' ESL lectures, that Canada is a mosaic as opposed to a melting-pot. As long as everyone is answering to the same set of laws, any official recognition of minority cultures is purely cosmetic.
|
The funding of 'culture' is a financial sinkhole, and can help extend and strengthen some cultural traits that are quite distasteful. But anyways, I totally agree with you that provided we all have the same laws, no problem. But this is not exactly the case. We discuss white polygamy re: Mormons etc but not that Ontario extends welfare benefits to muslims polygamists (more for more wives). We stop white Christian ministers from trashing the gays, but when a muslim does it we look away (OTOH knows of the examples I'm referencing).
Have any of you read Ignatiuff's book "The Rights Revolution"? That is the future of Canadian multi-cult, and it isn't equal rights for all. Group rights.
Here is what diversity has brought the West:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024357.php
Oslo: Jihadists use children as human shields during violent anti-Israel demonstration
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024351.php
Toronto pro-jihad rally: "Jewish child, you're gonna f****n die. Hamas is coming for you"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024349.php
Denmark pro-jihad demo: "We want to kill all the Jews"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024345.php
German police aids Jew-hating Muslim mob, removes Israeli flag from window
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024341.php
Los Angeles pro-jihad rally: "Long live Hitler," "Put Jews in ovens"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024339.php
London pro-jihad, Jew-hating rally turns violent
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLB20239
| Quote: |
ROME, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Italy's defence minister warned the country's Muslims to stop further "provocations" after thousands held prayers in public squares in Milan during pro-Palestinian demonstrations over the past week.
Ignazio La Russa, from the right-wing National Alliance, said he did not oppose protests or want to deny anyone the right to pray, but called the public prayers a challenge to peace.
"I say enough of the provocations of Islamists in Milan," he told Il Giornale newspaper on Sunday. "In Milan, a legitimate demonstration ended in a deliberately provocative mosque under the open sky." |
Diversity is all fine and good if we can agree upon "culture". Culture properly defined is a "shared perspective". If a civilizational gap exists, Lebanon is the future. Bigverne is right. Ideology is something that Westerners like to play down. But it is powerful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
(deleted, see next page)
Last edited by On the other hand on Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:03 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
