|
jlf1961 -> RE: A Little Too Much Multiculturalism (7/10/2008 3:09:19 AM)
|
Multiculturalism generally refers to a de facto and state of racial, culturalethnic diversity within the demographics of a specified place, usually at the scale of an organization such as a school, business, neighbourhood, city or nation.
Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, George Santayana, Horace Kallen, John Dewey, W.E.B. Du Bois and Alain Locke developed concepts of cultural pluralism, from which emerged what we understand today as multiculturalism.
The op made is "A Little Too much Multiculturalism" clearly stating there was a problem with this happening in the United States were Multiculturalism and Pluralism are espoused as wonderful ideals.
Thus the op clearly goes against the theory put forth by William James concerning a plural society.
Under that theory, all cultures could be blended into one plural society to form the basis of philosophy and social humanism to build a better society.
In the United States, multiculturalism is a national policy, which is where this conflict as stated in the title to the thread is made quite clear.
quote:
Zensee
But playing the racism card, that's sure to generate plenty more heat and smoke
That statement is a false arguement, at no point was racism mentioned. What has been mentioned is religion, which is part of a cultural make up of a society, but not part of the racial construction of the same society.
Clearly, there are cases in which the national policy of multiculturalism is unworkable, and this is one. Just as female circumcision would be another, or the killing of a female infant because it has less value than a male.
For the United States to truly be multicultural, this would have been legal on religious grounds. But then the killing of White Anglo Saxons by Native Americans would also be legal on moral grounds due to the theft of land and attempts to destroy the various indigenous cultures.
Thus the argument is against the hypocrisy of stating the United States is a true multicultural society, which clearly anyone can see. Complete multiculturalism while a stated national policy is clearly not the case, there are certain exclusions, which I am sure you would agree.
People who come to this country under the misguided belief that they could continue unrestrained practice of religions that allow for such acts as honor killings, polygamy, ritualized vendettas, ethnic conflict, even the murder of non-believers are in for a rude awakening, as this man has had.
There are some who would take the declared national policy and use it as a defense against prosecution, and they could quite easily win, except that the wisdom of most people would see the fault in such an argument.
Perhaps your statement is clouded by past arguments and debates with the originator of this statement?
The simple fact is that the ritual honor killing of a daughter is wrong, on both moral and ethical grounds, and there is no way to justify it in a modern society.
It is also fact that many cultures around the world will defend that belief until their very last breath, hence the existence of religious fundamentalist who call any act of violence an act of holy war.
None of which has anything to do with racism. Culture does not equate to race. If a Caucasian were to practice Buddhism does that make him or her Asian? Your racism comment clearly makes that a true statement.
|
|
|
|
