How Multiculturalism Took Over America

Some years ago the Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer declared that "we are all multiculturalists now." One's initial response to such an unwanted announcement is to say: "What do you mean, 'we'?" Yet, even if "we" do not subscribe to that sentiment, it cannot be denied that over the last twenty years multiculturalism has become the ruling idea of America, incarnated in every area of society ranging from educational curricula to the quasi-official establishment of foreign languages, to mandated racial proportionality schemes in private employment and university admissions, to the constant invocations by our political, business, and intellectual elites of "diversity" as the highest American value. How, so quickly and effortlessly, did this alien belief system take over our country?

The Fraud of Inclusion

It follows from this that the main goal of multiculturalism is inclusion. Multiculturalists argue that minority and non-Western cultures have been unjustly excluded in the past from full participation in our culture, and that in order to correct this historic wrong we must now include them on an equal basis. In other words, these minority cultures must be regarded as having the same public importance as America's historic majority culture. Moreover, we are told, this equal and public inclusion of different cultures does not threaten our culture, but "enriches" it. By this reasoning, if we became (say) an officially bilingual society, with Spanish appearing alongside English on every cereal box and street sign in the land (as is done with the two languages of Canada), our culture would not be harmed in the slightest. We would only be including something we once excluded. We would have become something more, not less. What could be more positive? How could any decent person object?

To begin to answer that question, let us imagine a scenario in which a Western cultural group—say a large population of Italian Catholics—moved en masse into a Moslem country and demanded that the host society drop all public observance of its majority religion and redefine itself as a multicultural state. When the Moslems react in fear and outrage, the Catholics answer: "What are you so uptight about, brothers? In challenging Islam's past exclusionary practices, we're not threatening your religion and way of life, we're enriching them." Of course, as even the multiculturalists would admit, such "enrichment" would change Islam into something totally unacceptable to the Moslem majority. By the same logic, if the U.S. Congress were required to conduct all its proceedings in Chinese or Spanish alongside English, that would obviously not "enrich" America's political tradition, but radically disrupt and change it. To say that a majority culture must "include" alien traditions on an equal basis in order to prove its own moral legitimacy is to say that the majority culture, as a majority culture, is not legitimate and has no right to exist.

Since multiculturalism claims to stand for the sanctity and worth of each culture, the discovery that its real tendency is to dismantle the existing European-based culture of the United States should have instantly discredited it. Yet it has not—not even among conservatives. A leading reason for this failure is that modern conservatives are themselves ethnicity-blind, democratic universalists. Their conservatism consists in seeing multiculturalism as an attack on their universalist tenets. They fail to understand multiculturalism as an attack on a particular culture and people, namely their own, because as universalists they either have no allegiance to that particular culture and people or their allegiance is defensive and weak. Thus the typical conservative today will say that multiculturalism is bad because "it divides us into different groups"—which is of course true. But he rarely says that multiculturalism is bad because "it is destroying ourculture"—America's historic culture and civilization—since that would imply that he was defending a particular culture rather than a universalist idea. Because conservatives are unwilling to defend the very thing that multiculturalism is seeking to destroy, they are unable to identify the nature of multiculturalism and to oppose it effectively.

Several caveats are in order before proceeding with a discussion, which will inevitably incite the multicultural left and invite its characteristically unscrupulous attacks. When I speak of America's "dominant Western culture," or of its "majority culture and people," these are not intended as code words for whites. Individuals of non-European ancestry are and can be full members of America's majority Western culture. At the same time, it is a historical fact that America’s defining political culture is Anglo-Saxon and Protestant in origin and character. A Japanese-American can become an American by embracing this culture—this culture shaped by Anglo-Saxon and Protestant traditions—as his own. (And I write this as a non-Anglo-Saxon Jew.) The same is true for individuals of any ethnic or racial group.

In this article I refer occasionally to whites as well as to generic conservatives, mainly because whites, as the American majority population and the historic ethnic core of the dominant culture, are the particular targets of multicultural propaganda. Whites as a group are never spoken of today except in negative terms. This is the case even as liberal white elites worship at the altar of blacks as a group, of Moslems as a group, of Mexicans as a group, and so on. Many whites have so absorbed today's anti-white attitudes that they consider it "racist" even to think of themselves as whites or to speak of whites as a category at all. Not only does this represent a malignant double standard, in which nonwhites are empowered in their anti-white racism while their white targets are silenced, it doesn't even make sense. How can we speak intelligently about the fateful issues of multiculturalism and national identity if we are not even allowed to mention one of the main parties (though most of its members decline to think of themselves as a party) to those controversies?

My occasional use of the present tense to portray the respective sides of the diversity debate should not be taken to suggest that any meaningful debate on that topic is still going on, at least in mainstream venues. As has been increasingly evident since the mid-1990s, the multiculturalists have pretty well won their war against America's former dominant culture, in the sense of supplanting it as the prevailing national idea. Multiculturalist agendas and the rhetoric of diversity inform the key institutions and official expressions of American society. It is now an unquestioned credo both in the schools and among the elites that the central purpose of our society is the inclusion of other peoples and cultures, rather than the preservation, flourishing, and enhancement of our own people and culture. Multiculturalism is embraced in the highest precincts of the establishment right as well as the left. Thus George W. Bush, casting aside Ronald Reagan's belief in immigration with assimilation, has celebrated the growth of unassimilated foreign languages and cultures in this country, while his closest aide, Condoleezza Rice, who ten years ago told radio host Bob Grant that she was a Republican because Republicans treated her as an individual instead of as a black, now supports minority racial preferences in college admissions and throws around diversity rhetoric with the best of them.

The victory of multiculturalism does not mean that all is lost. The country can be won back from the dominant multicultural ideology, but only if we recognize that it is, in fact, the dominant ideology. Could Reagan have liberated Eastern Europe from Communism if he had imagined—as did the hapless Gerald Ford—that Communism did not actually control Eastern Europe? My purpose, then, is not to warn readers against a future multicultural takeover of American institutions and politics, since it has already substantially occurred. My purpose is to show how the takeover occurred, and, equally important, how the intellectual failures of conservatives allowed it to occur. Only by exploring those intellectual errors to their root, and reversing them in our own minds, do we have any hope of reversing the multiculturalist ascendancy over our country, and, ultimately, of winning back what we have lost.

In the paragraphs that follow, several examples will help illustrate the real direction of the multiculturalist ideology and the blindness of conservatives—particularly of white conservatives—to its agendas.

Example 1.Multiculturalists charge that the Western literary tradition is too "narrow" because it doesn't include voices of Third-World peoples of color. The implication is that the Western tradition as it has existed up to the present moment is not legitimate, and that it can only become legitimate by including other traditions.

Two realities are ignored here, both by the multiculturalists and by their targets. The first reality is that the Western tradition is a tradition. The second reality is that it is our tradition—the "our" referring to all those who are, or who aspire to be, whatever their ethnic and racial background, heirs and members of that tradition. When multiculturalists object to the word "our," claiming it is exclusive, they are really saying that they don't consider the Western tradition to be theirs. They are saying that they want to take it over and change it into something else. They are saying that they don't want the Western tradition to exist any more. And when Americans quickly agree that we shouldn't say "our" tradition, because the Western tradition is universal and belongs to the whole world, and when we further strive mightily to demonstrate how universal Western culture really is, without the slightest tincture of cultural particularity about it, we have tacitly conceded the multiculturalists' point that the Western tradition has no right to exist.

Example 2.Black studies professor Henry Louis Gates writes that the universities should adopt a curriculum that reflects all the world's cultures, not merely Western culture. Such a world culture, Gates continues, "situates the West as one of a community of civilizations. After all, culture is always a conversation among different voices."

That last comment is a snare for the gullible. It is one thing to say that the Western conversation consists of such different voices as (for example) Christianity, Judaism, Greek philosophy, and modern science. It is quite a different thing to say that the Western conversation consists of Shi'ite Islam, Animism, Voodoo, and Rastifarianism. Clearly, to include every voice as an equal participant in the Western conversation would mean the end of the Western conversation. Gates tacitly admits this is his purpose when he remarks: "To insist that we 'master our own culture' before learning others ... only defers the vexed question: What gets to count as 'our' culture? What has passed as 'common culture' has been an Anglo-American regional culture, masking itself as universal."(2) In other words, the Anglo-American or Western culture should not be transmitted as our primary culture because it is not really "ours," and it is not really "ours" because it doesn't include all cultures, meaning non-Western cultures and those who belong to them.

Leaving aside the complex question of whether and under what conditions Western culture includes non-Westerners, the more immediate concern to us here is that Western culture is the culture of Westerners. Gates wants to include other cultures within Western culture so that the resulting hodgepodge will belong equally to everyone in the world. But—and this is the point overlooked both by the multiculturalists and their conservative universalist opponents—that means taking Western culture away from Westerners. The debate becomes a debate between the global multiculturalists on the left, and the global universalists on the so-called right, with no one standing up for the historical Western culture.

Example3. In a widely-publicized incident at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s, an administrator sharply criticized an undergraduate on a diversity planning committee for writing of her "deep regard for the individual." "This is a RED FLAG phrase today," the administrator wrote back, "which is considered by many to be RACIST. Arguments that champion the individual over the group ultimately privilege the 'individuals' belonging to the largest or dominant group."(3) For the multiculturalists, Western individuality is nothing but a mask of illegitimate dominance, which must be stripped away. But for Westerners, Western individuality is an integral aspect of their being. Therefore to get rid of Western individuality (so as to include non-individualistic, non-Western cultures) is to destroy the very essence of Western people. Conservative critics of multiculturalism never grasp this fact, because, as universalists, the notion of a particularist Western essence is alien to them.

Example 4. The celebrated black novelist Toni Morrison writes that the American ideals of liberty and the rights of man are "permanently allied with ... the hierarchy of race."(4) [Emphasis added]. Morrison may be more correct than she realizes. The ideals of liberty that she despises—whether they be secretly "hierarchic" or not—are historically white Western ideals (though, as I've said, people of any background can aspire to them), and it's clear to anyone with eyes that race-avenging blacks such as Morrison will quickly destroy the rights and institutions based on those ideals as soon as they are in a position to do so. If the majority of blacks believe that liberty is only a white ideal, then the political ascendancy of blacks with their contrasting black ideals (i.e. ideals of black racial consciousness and black racial power) must mean the end of liberty. Meanwhile, the conservative universalists see Morrison's ideas as only a threat to a universal order in which blacks and whites could live together as one. They fail to see these ideas for what they really are: an attempt to destroy our historic Western culture of liberty and individualism.

This is a big load of crap.

For instance it states

Multiculturalists argue that minority and non-Western cultures have been unjustly excluded in the past from full participation in our culture The final word should actually be society not culture. There is no single American culture and there never was. And it totally ignored the course of events in American history.

I think very few would disagree that America was founded on the principle of equality. At first that equlity only meant white, landed males, but as our "culture" changed the definition changed with it. This is the nature of "cutlure". It is not stagnant, but fluid. The only "culture" that does not constantly change and adapt are those that are dead like Greek, Roman or French.

When settlers in America were primarily British, the influx of Europeans with different cultures invariably altered theirs. (acutally the history of people constantly pushing east to west even in Europe altered cultures there too). There is a reason we call Brits Anglo-Saxons and not Celts.

Therefore, to claim that the influence that immigrants have on American society is a negative one, is a load of crap that just allows lefties to label conservatives as racists.

Lastly, on the issue of language, we are also talking about a fluid and ever changing medium. The only languages that don't change are dead languages (again, ancient Greek, Latin, French). Listen to how other languages are spoken by educated persons and you will here a suprising amount of English. This is what Latin did to native languages 2000 years ago.

What also seems to be forgotten here is that a multilingual soceity tends to create individuals who can speak both languages not one or the other. This has been proven time and again in Europe and elsewhere. The only valid point is that new immigrants to the US should be given every incentive to learn English because a common language is the basis of (relative) harmony andunderstanding in American civic life.

Otherwise you are falling into a logic trap that allows you to condone the type of attitudes that the left succesfully pins on the right to win elections (with only minor amounts of voting fraud.)

Conservatives ... must become conservative in fact as well as in name, meaning that their primary devotion must be to the preservation of our underlying moral, cultural, and political order, rather than to its transformation and dissolution through the ever more radical project of global equality and inclusion. Liberalism, in the sense of the rule of law obeyed and enjoyed equally by all, is central to what we are. But if liberalism is not to become the path to Western suicide, it must operate within a social and moral order that is not itself liberal. -Lawrence Auster

Very long, but quite a good read. It set parts of my brain arguing with other parts of it. It was impossible for me not to feel annoyed that the author was being reactionary. Yet he is saying exactly what I myself believe, and applying those insights to the commonplaces around us.

How, so quickly and effortlessly, did this alien belief system take over our country?

With this question posed at the end of the first paragraph, was I rightly expecting that there should be a cogent history of multiculturalism presented ?

Instead we have a potpourri of disjointed ideas that stand on their own merits but don't answer the original intriguing question.

BUMP

In other words, these minority cultures must be regarded as having the same public importance as America's historic majority culture. Moreover, we are told, this equal and public inclusion of different cultures does not threaten our culture, but "enriches" it. By this reasoning, if we became (say) an officially bilingual society, with Spanish appearing alongside English on every cereal box and street sign in the land (as is done with the two languages of Canada), our culture would not be harmed in the slightest. We would only be including something we once excluded. We would have become something more, not less. What could be more positive? How could any decent person object?

But if all cultures are equal, why just have labels in Spanish and English? Why not French, German, Russian, Hindi, etc.? Anyway lots of Spanish speakers in this country are not really of Spanish European origin but from Central or South American Indian stock. In many cases the native languages of their ancestors were forced into extinction by Spanish imperialism. Of course the Spanish isn't even the native language of the European population of Spain. During the time of the Roman Empire, Spain was home to germanic tribes like the Goths and Vandals who spoke germanic lanquages. It was the Romans who conquered Spain who introduced Latin there. Over the centuries the Spanish language evolved from Latin. Of course even before the germanic tribes moved into Spain there were pre-existing populations of unknown origins who spoke languages that are not of Indo-European origin. Among these are the Basques. But before any of the modern human populations were in Spain there were Neanderthals there. Apparently there is no indication that the Neanderthals left any decendants in the modern populations of Europe including Spain. So anyway, if all cultures are of equal value, why just have a few Indo-European imperialist languages on the labels?

I disagree that its crap.
While it is true that America has been positively changed by the assimilation of other cultures, that is not what multiculturalism is about. It IS about balkanization and the destruction of Western values. It is avowed, as any google search will show, that the "deconstruction" of history is to strip western culture of its significance and values. It is a far cry from assimilating other people who come here.
One of the main tenets of that western is individualism and the right and freedom of the person to pursue his dreams and goals. That is what is under attack by the multiculturalists.
Another is the development of the scientific method by Western culture. That too is under attack by those who want to make all ideas valid especially if they are from some perceived "oppressed" minority. In that view, Afrocentrist "history" is every bit as valid and indeed is more correct than the western study of history. The FACT that afrocentrism is unsupportable by any facts is brushed away as "racist" etc.
Further, the attack against reading and studying the "literature" of western culture denies the student...all students...with the basis for the reasons this country is the way it is. It precludes the philosophers whose theories have molded much of the underlying assumptions of Western culture and denies that western culture by its very success should be emulated, preserved and celebrated.
Lastly, the deconstruction of western culture allows demagogues like Hillary Clinton to stand before an audience and state with a straight face that "We are going to take it from you for the common good", because it fosters socialism through the "celebration and inclusion" of factional neo-tribalism.
The author hits a homer with this article.

There is no single American culture and there never was.

Preposterous nonsense I normally wouldn't expect to read on this site. I suppose this country never had a single language immigrants aspired to learn and teach their children, either?

Welcome to Bosnia, where cultures fight endlessly for predominance and no self-described "victims" are ever happy with their share.

You want diversity? Look at the the way it's working out so far in the UN.

The discussion of multiculturalism reveals the "unspoken truth" dilemma. The unspoken truth is that there is a relatively clear hierarchy of achievement among cultures. Basically, Western, Judeo-Christian culture created the modern world and all of its benefits (and problems). That thought is intolerable to members of other cultures as it breeds a justifiable sense of inferiority. Ultimately, that is the issue that underlies all of the back-and-forth debate about multiculturalism.

Therefore, to claim that the influence that immigrants have on American society is a negative one, is a load of crap that just allows lefties to label conservatives as racists.

You are obviously a multiculturalist, so this may not reach you but: The effects of immigration are usually positive if and only if the immigrants are interested in assimilation into the American dream. That is they seek to understand the society they have joined and accept that hard work and equal opportunity will lead to their own success. I don't mean they must drop their primary language, but they need to also learn english.

Where immigration fails to have a positive effect, you can find that the immigrants have pulled together to allow them to exist in their primary language and customs and claim they are the victims of the very racism you say conservatives will be accused of. Then the primary society says, OK, you are right, we are being unfair to you. We will demand that all literature be published in your language so you are not excluded. Then we provide social services and welfare, also in their own languange. Then we argue that employers should hire more of these minorities because they are not up to the percentage that they have in society at large, and on and on. Multiculturalism changes the society that did exist, and does so without a debate or legislative action. It is being done by social pressure and legal decisions of liberal judges.

The only valid point is that new immigrants to the US should be given every incentive to learn English because a common language is the basis of (relative) harmony andunderstanding in American civic life.

This is valid, every incentive includes intensive english in early schooling, without the multiyear bilingual approach which has been proven not to work. Likewise, the schools need to remind students of the positive points in our history without emphasis on the facts that the country as founded allowed slavery (which has since been abolished) and that the founding fathers were all land holders and white men (what does it matter when they developed the set of laws that led to the greatest country in the world.) You see the subtle way that you end up accepting multiculturalism and arguing that an article that points out its flaws is "a load of crap"?

That is they seek to understand the society they have joined and accept that hard work and equal opportunity will lead to their own success. I don't mean they must drop their primary language, but they need to also learn english.

I would argue that nearly all legal and most illegal immigrants to the United States and there to work hard and strive toward the American dream. They do their best to learn the language and customs under the usually tough circumstances they find themselves economically. And, they want their children to be American in every sense. This is the way it was in the past, and there is no reason for it to have changed. Naturalized Americans are often the most fervent patriots.

Where immigration fails to have a positive effect, you can find that the immigrants have pulled together to allow them to exist in their primary language and customs

Without exception, immigrants from Europe banded together in communities of other immigrants. Little Italy, German town, Spanish Harlem are just a few names of the many communnities that came to America, worked hard and became citizens.

Now - and this is the main point - if the children of these immigrants still do not speak English and understand the American culture that is where there is a real problem. If these natural born Americans do not follow the paths of other 1st generations we have an issue.

Otherwise, you are merely re-expressing the opinions that followed the last massive wave of immigration to the US at the turn of the previous century.

Sure it is tough to absorb all those different cutlures and people and naturally it has an effect on the culture. In the past it made America stronger and will do so again in the future.

Yes, there are limits and language should be one of them. Given the increasingly fluid border with Mexico, and their trucks about to enter the US, bi-lingual signs may not be so terrible. My question (and I really don't know) is this a trend outside of the border region?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.