The Fallacy of Multiculturalism
James Murphy
Issue date: 4/11/06 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 3 next >
I do not wish to inflame too many with the following article; it is merely the product of my concrete lived experience, it is what is true for me, what I believe to be the case and thus although I do not wish to insult, in any way, shape or form, what you believe or what you think, please allow me to present what I believe to be true. And here we go.
Allow me to step outside my own experience for a moment. I do wish to inflame people with this argument. My intention is indeed to impinge upon what you believe, possibly even to undermine it and destroy it. These are not beliefs, thoughts, wishes, whims or opinions, but words on a page, utterly independent of James Murphy and his experiences, and open to criticism from any and all that feel so compelled. This is not a displacement of my self-confidence and self-respect onto a newspaper article, it is not the sum total of my worth and it is not impervious to error. With that in mind, let us begin discussing the substance of this article.
The topic at hand is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was introduced to the United States by Canada and the United Kingdom in the 1970s, and is the latest attempt to establish a socio-cultural methodology for resolving interethnic tension. It became apparent towards the end of the Progressive Era (late 1910s-early 1920s) that this melting pot was not quite hot enough; large chunks remained at the bottom. The American population looked a lot more like a salad bowl than a melting pot. Once the intense anti-Communism and patriotism of the 50s and 60s began to subside, it became clear that a new methodology was needed, and hence multiculturalism came into the national discourse.
Multiculturalism suggests that if each disparate culture celebrates its own presence within the given organizational body, be it a nation, a campus, a corporation or a city, the population at large will come to see value in these differences. Inter-ethnic strife, according to this solution, is a problem primarily of fear and ignorance. Celebration and education are the mechanisms by which the nation's long history of race war will finally resolve itself.
Allow me to step outside my own experience for a moment. I do wish to inflame people with this argument. My intention is indeed to impinge upon what you believe, possibly even to undermine it and destroy it. These are not beliefs, thoughts, wishes, whims or opinions, but words on a page, utterly independent of James Murphy and his experiences, and open to criticism from any and all that feel so compelled. This is not a displacement of my self-confidence and self-respect onto a newspaper article, it is not the sum total of my worth and it is not impervious to error. With that in mind, let us begin discussing the substance of this article.
The topic at hand is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was introduced to the United States by Canada and the United Kingdom in the 1970s, and is the latest attempt to establish a socio-cultural methodology for resolving interethnic tension. It became apparent towards the end of the Progressive Era (late 1910s-early 1920s) that this melting pot was not quite hot enough; large chunks remained at the bottom. The American population looked a lot more like a salad bowl than a melting pot. Once the intense anti-Communism and patriotism of the 50s and 60s began to subside, it became clear that a new methodology was needed, and hence multiculturalism came into the national discourse.
Multiculturalism suggests that if each disparate culture celebrates its own presence within the given organizational body, be it a nation, a campus, a corporation or a city, the population at large will come to see value in these differences. Inter-ethnic strife, according to this solution, is a problem primarily of fear and ignorance. Celebration and education are the mechanisms by which the nation's long history of race war will finally resolve itself.
Be the first to comment on this story