MULTICULTURALISM: The Social Equivalent to a Participation Trophy

Liberals have given us some silly ideas over the years. Gun-free zones. Public-sector unions. Socialized medicine. On and on. The list is extensive, but one of the dumbest ideas to emerge from the intellectual vacuum known as modern liberalism has to be the concept of Multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is the silly idea that all cultures are equally worthwhile. It posits that cultural worth isn’t something which can be objectively measured or assessed, but is instead a matter of subjective perspective. Multiculturalism dovetails very nicely with moral relativism, the idea that morality is just a matter of opinion. So if an action or cultural practice isn’t inherently Good or Bad, then it follows that the global contributions of that culture cannot be deemed worthwhile or worthless, but must be viewed through the context of that culture itself. Or so the argument goes.

This is why you will never hear a true blue bleeding-heart speak dismissively of Islamic culture. Rational beings would look at the paucity of civil rights held by women in Islamic communities, coupled with the forcible denial of religious freedoms to any non-Islamic minorities, and find Islamic culture to be less worthy of emulation or adoption than more liberal options.

Not liberals. They can’t articulate a judgment between two cultures, because that would force them to admit that there is an objective means to measure actions and practices; and that would open up a can of worms which squirm more than relativists trapped by their own illogic.

Of course, this unwillingness to form an objective judgment at a cultural level will never prevent liberals from castigating Israel from sun-up to sun-down for being a blood-thirsty people who prey on innocent victims. (Don’t think too long on that contradiction. They certainly haven’t…)

Nope, all cultures are equally valid and no aspects of any one culture should be favored over another!! Since all cultures are equally valid, it’s wrong (no contradiction there) to break down the boundaries of cultural adherence. In fact, the perception among multiculturalists is that encouraging cultural assimilation is rapacious and dictatorial. No longer should we seek to be a “melting pot” which creates a bouquet of cultural flavors in one united American fondue. Instead we’ve become that OCD kid who won’t eat his dinner if a french fry grazes his mac-and-cheese, demanding a separate plate to keep each segment of his meal completely segregated. The result is social balkanization, increased tribalism, and a deteriorating cultural fabric. By giving each culture a participation trophy, Multiculturalism isn’t strengthening society. It’s weakening us by inhibiting cohesion, cooperation, and communal development.

Imagine running a company with this mentality. What if each department of General Motors was celebrated for the unique way they designed and produced their portion of the automobile? If the parts are produced in a manner incompatible with each other, we’d blame the disparate departments who are operating independently of each other. And when the cars get recalled by the million, due to faulty design and incompatible workmanship, the blame could be placed squarely on the policy which suggested that incompatible diversity would make better cars. Mind-numbingly stupid, isn’t it? The celebration of something simply because it is different, irrespective of worth or validity, is idiocy.

“When Europeans first discovered paper and printing from China, they did not “celebrate diversity”, they stopped giving themselves writers’ cramp from copying scrolls and started letting the printing presses do the work. When American Indians saw horses for the first time after Europeans brought them here, they did not “celebrate diversity”, they started riding off to hunt instead of walking.”

– Thomas Sowell

Multiculturalism is cultural socialism. Those in power pick winners and losers, with the losers usually being the most productive or the most successful, historically. Just like political socialism, in multiculturalism, the population is strong-armed into ideological adherence instead of allowed to choose the best of the options available to them.

And just like political socialism, in a multiculturalist society, free-market principles are not allowed to exert their purifying influence as they are in the “melting pot” model. If we think back to when America’s culture was its most vibrant and influential, we can readily recognize the distinct and powerful themes which different cultures brought to the American table; not because every culture in America had something worthwhile to offer, but because (for the most part) we incorporated what worked and ditched what didn’t. This is how any entity gets stronger and builds greater cohesion among its parts.

The ideal that the ancient Greeks sought in their time was “university”. The original meaning behind this phrase was not an institution of higher learning, but the presence of unity within diversity. This paradox taps into the strengths of both phenomena and promotes stability. When we are at our strongest and healthiest is when we channel our natural diversity into our national unity. Multiculturalism, as is the case with most leftist ideas, stands this on its head by demanding diversity at the cost of unity.