| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Multicultural sensitivity and how it can have brutal consequences
Mark Steyn writes today about the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons that has sparked a furor amongst Muslims overseas. In it, he argues in favor of the publication of the cartoons on free speech grounds and makes a great point that multicultural ’sensitivity’ (such as that which is being shown in free societies such as our own) can and will lead to the downfall of civilization if we let it:
One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they’ll marvel at how easy it all was. You don’t need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that’s a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural “sensitivity,” the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want — including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the “sensitivity” of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.
No doubt he’s similarly impressed by the “sensitivity” of Anne Owers, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, for prohibiting the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and thus is offensive to Muslims. And no doubt he’s impressed by the “sensitivity” of Burger King, which withdrew its ice cream cones from its British menus because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl shown on the lid looked like the word “Allah” in Arabic script. I don’t know which sura in the Koran says don’t forget, folks, it’s not just physical representations of God or the Prophet but also chocolate ice cream squiggly representations of the name, but ixnay on both just to be “sensitive.”
And doubtless the British foreign secretary also appreciates the “sensitivity” of the owner of France-Soir, who fired his editor for republishing the Danish cartoons. And the “sensitivity” of the Dutch film director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit multicultural comedy ”Shouf Shouf Habibi!” on the grounds that “I don’t want a knife in my chest” — which is what happened to the last Dutch film director to make a movie about Islam: Theo van Gogh, on whose ”right to dissent” all those Hollywood blowhards are strangely silent. Perhaps they’re just being “sensitive,” too.
And perhaps the British foreign secretary also admires the “sensitivity” of those Dutch public figures who once spoke out against the intimidatory aspects of Islam and have now opted for diplomatic silence and life under 24-hour armed guard. And maybe he even admires the “sensitivity” of the increasing numbers of Dutch people who dislike the pervasive fear and tension in certain parts of the Netherlands and so have emigrated to Canada and New Zealand.
Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a “diverse” “tolerant” society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.
One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there’s very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, “To be or not to be, that is the question.”
Read the whole thing.
More: In the meantime, Kevin/blogagog sends along this link that notes the Vatican’s position on the publication of these cartoons:
The Vatican condemned the publication of the cartoons, saying freedom of speech did not mean freedom to offend a person’s religion.
That’s an interesting position for the Vatican to take, especially considering any number of positions the Vatican has taken which would offend others, such as their anti-gay union and anti-abortion stances. The Vatican enjoys the religious freedom to condemn practices which they deem morally abhorrent and against Catholic teachings – which in turn offends ‘progressives’, but apparently the Vatican doesn’t feel like society has the freedom to condemn (in this case, via cartoons) a particular religious group’s more extreme practices which they deem morally abhorrent and against all common decency. Classic example of “free speech for me, but not for thee” if I’ve ever seen it.
Update: Charles Moore writing in today’s UK Telegraph nails it:
On the Today programme yesterday, Stewart Lee, author of Jerry Springer: The Opera – in which Jesus appears wearing nappies – let the cat out of the bag. He suggested that it was fine to offend Christians because they had themselves degraded their iconography; Islam, however, has always been more “conscientious about protecting the brand”.
The implication of the remark is fascinating. It is that the only people whose feelings artists, newspapers and so on should consider are those who protest violently. The fact that Christians nowadays do not threaten to blow up art galleries, invade television studios or kill writers and producers does not mean that their tolerance is rewarded by politeness. It means that they are insulted the more.
Right now, at the fashionable White Cube Gallery in Hoxton, you can see the latest work of Gilbert and George, mainly devoted, it is reported, to attacks on the Catholic Church. The show is called Sonofagod Pictures and it features the head of Christ on the Cross replaced with that of a primitive deity. One picture includes the slogan “God loves F***ing”.
Like most Christians, I find this offensive, but I think I must live with the offence in the interests of freedom. If I find, however, that people who threaten violence do have the power to suppress what they dislike, why should I bother to defend freedom any more? Why shouldn’t I ring up the Hon Jay Jopling, the proprietor, and tell him that I shall burn down the White Cube Gallery unless he tears Gilbert and George off the walls? I won’t, I promise, but how much longer before some Christians do? The Islamist example shows that it works.
There is a great deal of talk about responsible journalism, gratuitous offence, multicultural sensitivities and so on. Jack Straw gibbers about the irresponsibility of the cartoons, but says nothing against the Muslims threatening death in response to them. I wish someone would mention the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant Islam – fear. And then I wish someone would face it down.
I second that!
Related Toldjah So posts:
- US sides with Muslims in cartoon controversy
- More European papers reprinting “offensive” Islamic cartoons
- Bomb threats made against Danish paper over Mohammed cartoons
- Rep. J.D. Hayworth: Immigrants need to embrace U.S. culture
- Killing is a “Muslim obligation” – so why prosecute?
- Justice prevails in Australia – cultural defense rejected
- Multiculturalism in Australia part deux
- Update to ‘Gang rapist’s attacks unavoidable’ post
- Gang rapist’s attacks unavoidable, says lawyer
RSS feed for comments on this post.
46 Responses to “Multicultural sensitivity and how it can have brutal consequences”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
We almost agree, and Yugoslavia is a pretty good example. Multiculturalism was alive in the Bosnia-Herzegovina area. While Marhshal Tito enforced the peace in the area long enough so that the Croats, Serbs, and muslims learned to get along. After he died, things were relatively ok for about 10 years.
Then, as you said, “…the uniculturalists did stir up hatred.” And that is ALWAYS the case in societies who make an attempt at multiculturalism. Someone comes along and stirs up hatred. And when the size of the cultures are similar (as they were in all the countries mentioned in previous posts)… *BOOM* civil war.
If the sizes of the cultures are dissimilar and someone stirs up hatred, the result is riots and violence, followed by continued hatred from the minority culture. This happened in France, in the US in the 60’s, Kenya, again, the list goes on and on.
America’s successes when they had them were because the immigrants chose to be Americans instead of German-Americans, or English-Americans etc. (which is very good for us, since all of Europe hated all the rest of Europe for most of history).
So I believe the answer is as I stated before. Merge cultures with your new countrymen, and remain silent about aspects of your culture that cannot be merged (ex. Muslim immigrants to France should not talk about or promote dhimmitude, but ethnic food, fashion, building, history… should be brought into the french fold, slightly changing french culture for every frenchman). One country, one culture. Is that uniculturalism? I don’t know the word but if that describes it, I’m a uniculturalist.
“Then, as you said, “…the uniculturalists did stir up hatred.” And that is ALWAYS the case in societies who make an attempt at multiculturalism.”
But the thing is they did not make an attempt at multiculturalism. They had a dictatorship, and then were let go. No formation of a multicultural society, rather they had the culture of Tito imposed on them, and then were let go from that, to descend into chaos.
“America’s successes when they had them were because the immigrants chose to be Americans instead of German-Americans, or English-Americans etc.”
Exactly. We are multi-cultural. But not france. France does not see a brown person as a frechman. But the US will see a brown american as an american, because we are multicultural.
“One country, one culture. Is that uniculturalism? I don’t know the word but if that describes it, I’m a uniculturalist.”
A uniculturalist will make sure that all of french people as well as arab people meld into 1 thing. That’s not what we have in the US. We have chinatowns and little italys. Not melding into some indistinguishable 1 culture.
We used to have all people melded into one thing. All the chinatowns, little italy’s, and Germantowns in America added up to much less than a percent of our population even at their height. If that is what you are calling multiculturalism, then we are in total agreement. That setup works fine and peace can easily continue. But if 20% of Americans lived in chinatowns, 20% in little italy’s and the rest in other little somethings, we would be close to civil war or genocide of one of those groups. History shows this again and again. Multiculturalism is a great idea, it just doesn’t work.
When a tiny minority refuses to meld into the local culture, it is not a problem. As the size increases, so does the trouble.
This sounds more like racism to me than anything else. France has bigger problems than I thought if what you say is true.
I guess I am a uniculturalist. I strongly disagree with your statement that America hasn’t melded into one thing. Even with differences in appearance, can you tell by looking at Americans which ones are Philipino-American? Chinese-American? German-American? Horn of Africa-American? I don’t think you can because they are all just plain Americans now. I don’t subscribe to the idea that each culture should be embraced because no one culture is better than any other. If you are infatuated with your culture, don’t move to a place that has a different one. The result will be less pain and suffering for all involved.
It reminds me of that old Blue Oyster Cult song, “Godzilla!”.
Something like that. It’s been a while since I heard the song.
“But if 20% of Americans lived in chinatowns, 20% in little italy’s and the rest in other little somethings, we would be close to civil war or genocide of one of those groups.”
Uh. No. What if 20% live in inner cities and poverty while the rest live in suburbs?
“This sounds more like racism to me than anything else. France has bigger problems than I thought if what you say is true.”
Yes. they are racists. That’s not multiculturalism. That’s unicultural. They have 1 view of frenchness, and one must yield to it. We don’t do that here.
“Even with differences in appearance, can you tell by looking at Americans which ones are Philipino-American? Chinese-American? German-American? Horn of Africa-American? I don’t think you can because they are all just plain Americans now.”
I don’t think the test is ‘tell by looking.’ I think the test is do we consider them americans as well something else? As americans, even though they look different and have different customs? then we are multicultural.
Oh wait, you are saying multiculturalism is exemplified by people living in both urban and rural communities? I fail to see the correlation.
I was under the impression that uniculturalism as defined by you meant one culture. Not one color. How does color enter into it?
No no no no no no no no no. Looks and culture are apples and oranges. What you are now describing as multiculturalism is really acceptance of different races. We are multicultural if we each have our own culture that we wish to project into our children. We are all as one (unicultural?) if we want our kids to be plain old Americans.
It’s clear that we have reached the end of useful debate. I hope you learned a few things. I certainly did! I had never heard the word ‘uniculturalism’ before, for example. Thanks for your time.
“What you are now describing as multiculturalism is really acceptance of different races. ”
The lines are fuzzy, but ‘different looks’ can be because of different dress as well as race.
“We are multicultural if we each have our own culture that we wish to project into our children. We are all as one (unicultural?) if we want our kids to be plain old Americans.”
And we’re the former, not the latter. We raise our kids how we want them growing up.
You may be, I’m not.
>We raise our kids how we want them
>growing up.
Multiculturalism: self-segregation.
“Multiculturalism: self-segregation. ”
Like homeschooling. you’re getting it.
>Like homeschooling
You think homeschooling is multiculturalism? Please don’t strain your shoulder reaching for the comparison. We don’t have socialised medicine here to take care of you.
SO you equate the freedom for a family to teach thier children how they think they should be taught to segregation?
That is a completely foolish statement of yours.
In the declining public schools some parents feel they can better teach their children than the public schools can, without influences of bullies, sexual encounters, moronic ad-libs to lesson plans that are not part of the school curriculum, just a teachers own philosophy.
If you equate homeschooling to segregation, then you probably do so with private schools also? Voucher program also equate to segregation?
What’s next…accusing people of being on a plantation?
“SO you equate the freedom for a family to teach thier children how they think they should be taught to segregation?”
No. You do.
“You think homeschooling is multiculturalism?”
It can be a part of it. We allow people to school their kids their own way rather than, like france, for all kids to go to schools where they can’t wear headscarves, for instance.
Sorry andrew, but YOU equated it and I questioned you on it.
CavalierX says “Multiculturalism: self-segregation. “
andrew says Like homeschooling. you’re getting it.
Unless you were meaning that Homeschooling is Multiculturalism.
“Unless you were meaning that Homeschooling is Multicultralism. ”
I don’t think they’re equal. But having homeschooling does help protect different cultures in our society, as opposed to having everyone go to the same school. People who want to raise their kids with their own values are able to do it easier.
True.
Different religon and cultral backgrounds benefit from homeschooling.
From a Christain point of view, many don’t like how the public schools are teaching thier children. They have no say in what gets said to thier children on sex and a variety of other things.
Things like thier 7 – 10 year old child coming home after practicing putting a condom on a cucumber without the parents knowledge.
Things like that upset parents when public schools take over the raising of hte child away from the values of the parents.