The developed world is awash with celebrating Multiculturalism as the next coming of sliced bread. But what, exactly is Multiculturalism as we know it here in America and parts of Europe? And how should we perceive this idea that is bandied about like a badminton shuttlecock? Societies take in immigrants from other societies, often across national borders. If we take Yugoslavia as an example, it was the creation of the aftermath of WWII by the Communists in that area. Unfortunately there were several different cultures that were lumped together and as history has shown us, those weaker minorities often suffered greatly at the hands of those in power. The two main religious differences could never be broached and the cultural backgrounds and languages created even more barriers to to peaceful coexistence. The progressive liberal ideal of celebrating diversity and multiculturalism falls very flat on its collective face. Normally history would teach us that lesson but so many refused to learn.
Some societies have always been melting pots of differing cultures. Certainly one can look back at Rome and see that in the late stages of its Empire it had to embrace a good number of different cultures although not perfectly. Of course Rome expanded outward and those whom it conquered were attracted inward towards the center. There is a certain sense of identity when one’s future is entwined with that of another regardless of culture. We see this point in marriages where in one culture the bride lives with the husband’s family and so must assimilate into that family and another culture in which the husband goes to live with the bride’s family. The difficulties individuals may have in these microcosms give us a glimpse of how cultures existing with in other cultures has clashes of their own. If one is an Orthodox Jew the holy day starts Friday evening and not Sunday morning. And until recent times marriage in Ireland for the woman involved her father’s or if not living, her eldest brother’s consent. Imagine the family battles that must have gone on in countries such as the United States where no such custom was binding. When one immigrates one brings one’s cultural practices. And, of course, we have regional differences within the larger cultures depending on the size of the nation state. France shows us that there are quite a few differences between the various regions within France itself. Even with the passage of time there regional differences remain with very minor changes. Often this is evidenced by styles of local cooking. Sometimes it is the architectural style or decorative style.
Usually we rely on a common language to bind us all together, for it is through communication that we become less foreign strangers and more local friends. But when the migrant group makes little or no effort to learn the official language and instead argues for their own language to be used in all official communications, then we, as a national unity, remain separate and apart. It is like marrying some one but not recognizing the union and going one’s separate way. What was the point of the marriage? Cultural isolation is not something we should celebrate. I have written before about groups and why they are important, how they operate, and why we join them. To stubbornly remain outside the main culture is a refusal to join that culture. This is not something we should celebrate but something of which we should disapprove. Why should it matter? Because we are the culture collectively. Because we are capable of adopting some of the others that become entwined with our own. And because it is for our security as a culture, as a nation. This separateness is a challenge to the legality of our laws. We, the people, have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I can read no such words about we, as separate groups have separate laws and separate governments for separate peoples. This is why I am against the idea that we need several “legal languages” in this country. The French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Colombians, the Brazilians, the Iranians, and so many other countries do not stoop to catering to other language groups simply because members of those groups do not wish to learn the official language. It is one thing to have translation services available, it is another to mandate a second or even a third language as a mandatory regulation.
In Paris there are No-Go zones where the North African Islamic population has set up a de facto separate country. Police are almost forbidden to enter and Islamic law is the norm, not the exception. This is a serious matter for it puts church over state and it projects an Islamic nationalism over French nationalism. It is simply a challenge to the French state and formal government. How can one defend the rights of immigrants for such behavior? And why should the people of France stand for such behavior? Let these people be sent back to North Africa or what ever their origins. I see no reason to celebrate such stupidity. It is one thing to be proud of one’s ancestry, it is another to swear total allegiance to it. By extension, we should apply that same standard to those who have immigrated to the United States. Join us or leave, find somewhere else to go. I have a village house in northeastern France, something that I paid a little bit of money for and work on occasionally. When I am in France, I am French. Je suis Francais, assuming I have spelled it correctly. I try to learn the language and speak what I am capable of speaking. I am an old man and learning a foreign language is difficult for me. But I have a duty to learn what I can and when I can. Should I immigrate to France and live there permanently then I shall take the steps to become a French citizen. Why shouldn’t I? I read French history and culture. I just don’t strike and take the whole month of August off, but I am working on it.
The second problem is that of this stupidity called diversity. Essentially all cultures are equal, god, it that ever false, and that diversity means all ways of living are equal, another false idea. The tribal cultures of Afghanistan and Pakistan are not equal to many of the developed country cultures. That is, they are based of a violence that cannot be defended. A good many African cultures that perpetrate female circumcise and other health horrors are not worthy of consideration. I am sorry, but there are limits to what we should accept as culture. And yes, the western world has much to answer for in the way of its own stupidity. The current progressive liberal assertion of equality of all cultures ignores so many moral issues for that kum bah yah moment that is suppose to be so spiritual. But immorality is not spiritual, never was, and never will be. And diversity is merely a way to provide legitimacy for idiots. If you want to engage in homosexuality, fine, I’ve got no problem with that. If you want to engage in heterosexuality, fine, I’ve got no problem with that either. But I do have a problem when individuals and groups want to drag it out and parade it before the children on the street. I have a problem when you want to rub my nose in it. Yet, again, we have that same group of idiots trying to push diversity as equality. It is not about all things being equal. And I sure don’t want it pushed as a religion upon me. The problem comes when those well meaning individuals try to go about change by some sort of force, whether it be change in law or change in artificial mores. And I would just as soon take government out of the bedroom. If you want a marriage sanctioned by some church, so be it. But if you want it sanctioned by the government, no. Draw up a civil contract between the two or three of you, or whatever else you may wish to throw in. And as far as that contract goes, keep it renewable, not permanent. If you have to sit with your beloved one and a couple of lawyers hammering out rights and duties as legal clauses for a contract, maybe you would want to reconsider what love really means. You are a male and want to be a female? I’ve got no problem with that. Wear the clothes you feel most comfortable wearing, get the breast implants, have the sex change operation, go for it. But you will never be a genetic female and don’t try to make me believe that you are. I know, you feel like one and have always dreamed of being a female. Good for you. And if you are lucky you just might look like a pretty one. I don’t care if your Identity card says you are a woman, just as long as it does not imply you are a genetic female. For me it is a moral sticking point. Anyone you wish to take up with as a partner of some kind is entitled to know that your are still genetically male. A lie is still a lie. On this point I part company with the mass of idiots who do not seem to believe it is important to be honest about such things.