The Background of Multiculturalism
From the desk of Fjordman on Thu, 2006-11-16 22:37
I have been trying to analyze the roots of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. The conclusion I’ve come up with so far is that it needs to be understood as a combination of forces and influences, different but not mutually exclusive.
One view is that Multiculturalism “just happened,” an accidental result of technological globalization. Although global migration pressures and modern communications definitely contributed, this thesis is, in my view, almost certainly too simplistic. There is mounting evidence that Multiculturalism was deliberately encouraged by various groups. If anything, it is an indirect result of globalization through multinational corporations and the creation of an international political elite whose mutual loyalty increasingly supersedes national interests.
I have heard some commentators say that all the most destructive ideologies of the modern era have originated in Europe. But frankly, I’m wondering whether Multiculturalism is the one stupid idea that was actually exported from the United States to Europe. Danish writer Lars Hedegaard claims Multiculturalism comes from the United States following the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. After thinking about it, I find this to be a plausible explanation.
Perhaps Multiculturalism partly is an anti-European ideology, with the United States – and later Canada, Australia and New Zealand – distancing themselves from their European heritage, whereas Europe has distanced itself from itself. I noticed on one conservative American blog that it was perfectly permissible to trash European culture in any way possible, but when I carefully asked some questions about whether the cultural impact of massive Latin American immigration would be exclusively beneficial, I was accused of being “racist.”
Some readers of my essays have suggested that Multiculturalism originated in Canada. Author Claire Berlinski even believes that it was invented in Switzerland. But, with all due respect, the impact of Swiss or Canadian cultural influences abroad has been rather limited. The United States, however, has exerted powerful cultural influence all over the world since WW2, and has been in the position to export such an ideology.
The Civil Rights movement took place against a backdrop of a Western youth rebellion with Marxist influences. Although Multiculturalism may not be directly rooted in Marxist teachings, which helps explain why it has received support by some right-wingers, its anti-Western attitudes and radical Egalitarianism are at least compatible with ideas of forced equality, and aspects of Multiculturalism are sufficiently similar to Marxism to explain why its most ardent supporters are left-wingers, and why Political Correctness, the soft-totalitarian form of censorship employed to enforce Multiculturalism, is so appealing to them.
If we postulate that Multiculturalism and Political Correctness were initially born out of a Western loss of cultural confidence, but have since been largely utilized by the Western Left, this would explain why it exists all over the Western world, but strongest in Western Europe, which has had a more powerful Marxist influence and a greater historic loss of self-esteem than the USA. It would explain why Eastern Europeans, who have just experienced decades of Marxist indoctrination, are somewhat more resistant to it than are Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans have also been much less exposed to the Eurabians of the European Union, who champion Multiculturalism for their own reasons.
The best summary I can come up with thus looks something like this:
Multiculturalism originated in the United States during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, which triggered a complete re-thinking of American cultural identity in favor of repudiating the European aspects of its heritage to transform into a “universal” nation. Multiculturalism was exported to the rest of the Western world through American cultural influence, and was picked up by a Western Europe, still with deep emotional scars following its near self-destruction during two world wars, which was then in the process of leaving its colonies and suffered from a post-colonial guilt complex and the identity crisis associated with this.
Multiculturalism thus originally had its roots in a cultural identity crisis in the West, but it was quickly expropriated by groups with their own agendas. This period, the 1960s and 70s, was also the birth of the Western Cultural Revolution, a hippie youth rebellion against the established Western culture and institutions that was deeply influenced by Marxist-inspired ideologies. The anti-Western component in Multiculturalism suited them just fine. Following the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 90s, when economic Marxism suffered a blow in credibility although it didn’t die, larger segments of the Western political Left switched to Multiculturalism and mass immigration as their political life insurance, and wielded the censorship of Political Correctness and “anti-racism” as an ideological club to beat their opponents and continue undermining Western institutions.
On top of the Marxist influences, in Western Europe we had another groups of Euro-federalists and Eurabians, with a different but overlapping goal of breaking down the national cultures through the promotion of Multiculturalism in favor of a new, artificial identity. The process of globalization did not create these impulses of Western self-loathing, as indicated by the fact that non-Western countries such as Japan have not been overwhelmed by immigration to the same extent as the West, but it reinforced some of them.
Technological globalization has increased migration pressures to unprecedented levels, but it has also enabled a global political and economic elite of individuals, including some centrists and right-wingers, who no longer feel any close attachment to their countries, but mainly to the international elites who provide them with career opportunities.
These centrists, rightists and Big Business supporters may not be as actively hostile to Western culture as some left-wingers are, but they don’t do anything to uphold it, either, and use Multiculturalism to hide the fact that they have lost or abandoned control over national borders. Globalization has thus simultaneously created more migration and less political will to control migration.
The combination of all of these factors, in addition to the resurgence of a global Islamic Jihad, is gradually creating a demographic and democratic crisis in the West. Many Westerners sense that their media and their politicians are no longer listening to them, and they are perfectly correct. Those who feel a loyalty to their culture and their nation states feel betrayed, because they are.
Questionable Assertions
Submitted by kodiak on Fri, 2006-11-17 03:51.
I find it hard to believe that any conservative American blog would hurl the word "racist" in any context, let alone in regards to concerns about illegal immigration. This is a term that is trademarked by the Left.
Also, can Fjordman name for us a "right-winger" who sympathizes with multiculturalism and/or "no longer feel[s] any close attachment to their countries"?
One of the defining elements of American conservatism is a visceral dislike of multiculturalism and an abiding love of country. Perhaps "right-winger" and "American conservative" are not synonymous.
Multi culture UN
Submitted by Flanders Fields on Fri, 2006-11-17 00:58.
I am surprised that you didn't mention the obvious candidate-the UN. I remember seeing tracts supporting multiculturalism at, I believe, a Methodist church where a youth group was passing out tracts from UNICEF. It was being used as a money contributor to the UN. The concept may have predated the UN, but the usage was being promoted by them at the time they first began gaining any strength. As now, the children were the first tools used by them to gain more popular acceptance.
I normally agree with most Fjordman comments, but take exception to several here. I'll explain later.
I am surprised that you
Submitted by Voyager on Fri, 2006-11-17 12:00.
I am surprised that you didn't mention the obvious candidate-the UN
I cannot see how the UN could advocate anything other than Multiculturalism................it would be nonsense for it to do anything else - it is an international organisation..................but we are talking of nation states which have a distinctive identity.
It is the object of Socialists to abolish nation states - this was the big argument between Socialists like Pilsudski and Rosa Luxemburg - whether the nation had a purpose under Socialism. The USSR was originally intending to dissolve nation states into Socialist Republics federated into a Union.
Hitler and Stalin both wanted to extinguish states like Poland, the language, the culture, the people...............both were Transnationalists believing in the eradication of national identity
Transnationalists
Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2006-11-17 13:06.
Hitler and Stalin both wanted to extinguish states like Poland, the language, the culture, the people...............both were Transnationalists believing in the eradication of national identity
For Stalin that is true, of course.
For Hitler this is nonsense. Hitler wanted the territories for German expansion. Not the people. He chased them away, where ever he could. He was a nationalist in the most purest form of its meaning.
But let's cut the Bullshit. I'm certain that a lot of you are just as much charmed by multiculturalism as I am. You don’t mind that there are Italians, Spanish or Greeks in your towns. You probably don’t even mind Japanese or Chinese immigrants. What you do mind are Muslims. You’re just Islamofobes. You would do everything to get ride of Muslims. So you join the extreme-nationalists and you’re even prepared to give up the great contribution of America to our century: Free trade and globalization; In fact the only two real working mechanisms against fundamentalism in Islam and in everything
For Stalin that is true, of
Submitted by Voyager on Fri, 2006-11-17 14:12.
For Stalin that is true, of course.
For Hitler this is nonsense. Hitler wanted the territories for German expansion. Not the people. He chased them away, where ever he could. He was a nationalist in the most purest form of its meaning.
Wrong ! Completely in error. Hitler was NOT a nationalist. To claim he was is to ignore the whole basis of his regime. He had no interest in the German nationstate save as a vehicle which is why he wanted it destroyed in 1945 but was a Fuehrer of the Volk driven to recapture the landscape of the Teutonic Knights...........he did not incorporate conquered lands into Germany - he had a Reich which is not a nation-state.
Germany as a nation-state was the shrivelled status Versailles reduced it to between 1919 and 1938 - in all other periods there had been a German-speaking Reich. German Citizenship laws of 1913 were predicated on bloodlines not residence.
Hitler was not a Nationalist - that is the myth of The Left - he did not believe in nation-states but in Bloodlines and Ethnicity - he took blond-haired, blue-eyed Poles to be eingedeutscht since they obviously had Teutonic genetic material and had been kidnapped by Slavs.
Germany is today a country simply because the Oder-Neisse Line was recognised in 1990 - otherwise it was German-language groups that defined Das Volk. Kohl brought so-called Heimkehrer Germans from Kazakhstan into modern Germany because of supposed ethnic bloodlines to the Volk going back 300 years.
Das Volk is not a nation-state
nationalists
Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2006-11-17 15:03.
Dank ihre Führung hast Deutschland sein Ziel erreicht Heimat Zu sein für alle Deutsche der Welt (Hess)
Thanks to your leadership, Germany has reached his goal to be the heimat of all Germans. More nation-state then that, you die.
„Heimat“ is the main topic of Hitler’s „Philosophie“ Of course the regions east of the Oder-Neisse had for centuries a mixed population of German-like and Pole-like people. The concept “German” is an non-existing one, without state-borders. If there is anything extremists hate, it is unclear definitions. So some Germans where not considered German enough, ald some poles were considered too German to be Poles. "Wahnsinn" is not a German invention, it’s a nationalist one.
I can understand that you nationalists would rather get rid of a member as Hitler, but facts are facts.
Dank ihre Führung hast
Submitted by Voyager on Fri, 2006-11-17 16:48.
Dank ihre Führung hast Deutschland sein Ziel erreicht Heimat Zu sein für alle Deutsche der Welt (Hess)
This is not German - Hess was demented we know - but this is pitiful German with quite a few errors.............try again !
If you do not know what "Heimat", "Volk", "Blutschande", "Rassenschaendung", signify you should reference them - they have no meaning in the context of a nation-state..............the German State was founded as an Empire in 1871 and the concept was barely 60 years old when Hitler acceeded to power. You cannot speak of a German nation-state if Austria-Hungary exists outside it - look up the Grossdeutschland disputes of the 19th Century.
Hitler was an "Austro-Hungarian" by birth, born into the Austro-Hungarian Empire where his father was a Customs Official, it was therefore highly unlikely he would be a German nationalist in another country. It was simply that he rejected the Versailles Settlement which had imposed nation-states at the insistence of Woodrow Wilson where Hitler was convinced no nation-states should exist, and since the Eastern Borders of what passed for Germany were never defined at Versailles or Locarno, it was impossible to define what "Germany" might be as a nation-state.
That is in fact why Pan-Arabism is so similar to Nazism, because there are no natural borders defining one Arab tribe from another; the imposition of nation-states was a European conceit after The Treaty of Sevres which led to curiously unstable polities throughout the Middle East
Mass Apostasy In the West = cult of "Multiculturism"
Submitted by trinitypower on Fri, 2006-11-17 00:54.
Multiculturism is a product of mass apostasy and embrace of relativism in the West. Multiculturism is a perverse twisted version of charity and humility. The only way to eradicate it is to return to the Truth.
GK Chesterton
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2006-11-17 00:58.
"When a religious scheme is shattered, it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.
Chesterton so relevant!!
Submitted by trinitypower on Fri, 2006-11-17 02:24.
So true atheling!! We should rediscover the truth Chesterton gave us which is so relevant today!!
From Europe to America and back
Submitted by Snorri Godhi on Thu, 2006-11-16 23:37.
In my experience it is absolutely right that multiculturalism is stronger in America than in Europe (socialism is stronger in Europe but that's another problem). If you are not convinced, just watch Borat (the movie). To put it another way: Europeans might be anti-American, but they are not oikophobes. Except the British, of course, who should not be confused with Europeans.
And yet, where did moral relativism come from? from Europe, I am afraid: from Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. (I might be wrong because I am no historian of ideas.) The Civil Rights movement (in itself a good idea), together with the Vietnam war, provided the fertile ground for relativism that could not be found in Europe.
One must also distinguish between the irrational, ideological multiculturalism that dominates American universities from the also irrational, but pragmatic mutliculturalism that dominates European politics. European politicians are not interested in the relative merits of different civilizations: all what they care about is to avoid civil war until their term expires. That is becoming more and more difficult.
American origins
Submitted by Frank Lee on Thu, 2006-11-16 23:33.
It is entirely plausible that the cultural relativism of multiculturalism originated in the United States, but it has been embraced here mostly by the academic left, which ultimately is distrusted and dismissed by the sane majority of the electorate. Alas, in Europe it seems that the academic-journalistic-governmental left who spew this junk is respected by the masses. Or, at least, anyone who actually objects to the idiocy of the left keeps his mouth shut in public. The longer I am alive, the more I appreciate and applaud American anti-elitism, vulgarity, and individualism--even if it means I have to live among so many yahoos.
Let's Go Further Back
Submitted by atheling on Thu, 2006-11-16 23:21.
Multiculturalism is a product of the sympathy towards the "Noble Savage", a Romantic idealism of the American Indian, embraced by the Left's predecessors in 19th Century American Literature, such as Thoreau and Emerson, who idolized Nature. These writers and philosophers rejected the "sterile rationalism" of the Enlightenment.
Their thought goes back to the Father of Modern Liberalism:
Jean Jacques Rousseau.
multiculturalism
Submitted by evan on Thu, 2006-11-16 23:06.
Multiculturalism the idea, as opposed to the political movement, has older roots. The anthropologist Franz Boas (American, I think) in the 1920s wrote that it was simply not possible for anyone raised in one cultural background to make moral judgments about many practices in other cultures with which he was unfamiliar. We might cut him some slack in that he raised these points in response to the eugenics movement, which was powerful in the U.S. at that time. But the idea he launched has had a fatal harvest just the same.
Christopher Lasch The
Submitted by Voyager on Thu, 2006-11-16 22:55.
Christopher Lasch The Culture of Narcissism is a good place to start...............Multiculturalism is the trick by which you turn the majority into just one more minority group
Christopher Lasch
Culture of Critique
Submitted by Bruyns on Thu, 2006-11-16 23:13.
About the origins of multiculturalism, read the book of Kevin MacDonald: "The Culture of Critique"
Of course, the 'East Coast intellectuals' are also very open about it themselves, like David Horowitz' website:
"In his classic The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society Arthur Schlesinger traces it back to the German-born Jewish-American philosopher Horace Kallen. In an article in The Nation from 1915 he advocated a policy of "cultural pluralism" as opposed to the idea of assimilation and the slogan of the "melting pot" whose goal was to create a new race of Americans. At first this new concept didn't gather many adherents outside narrow academic circles, but the Civil Rights movement after the Second World War gave rise to new expressions of ethnic identity that tended to reinvigorate the idea of multiculturalism."
Solely an invention of the European (leftist) elite? I don't think so.