The Shotgun Blog
« Why I Love John McCain | Main | How the presidential race looks this weekend »
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Mark Steyn on Multiculturalism
I'm sure most of us are familiar with the work of Mark Steyn. Here he is speaking as part of a panel discussion at Pepperdine University, in Malibu. The topic is "multiculturalism and its impact on democratic society." The conference took place in June, 2007. Take a look at the video.
It's always easy to listen to Mark Steyn. And he's dead on when he says that avowed supporters of multiculturalism often have little more than a fuzzy warm feeling toward the various cultures they think do or can form a part of their happy little mosaic.
Incidentally, does anyone else who attended public school in Canada a decade or so ago remember smug teachers comparing America's bad ol' "melting pot" to Canada's enlightened "mosaic"? The metaphors described the different expectations Americans and Canadians supposedly place on their respective immigrants. As the story goes, bad America forces its immigrants to give up their culture , abandon ritual honor killings, and watch The Simpsons, and alll the incoming diversity gets melted into a pile of gray goop you can buy packages of at Wal-Mart for a buck or two.
Bad America, right?
On the other hand, Canada is nice enough not to ask its immigrants to give up any of their customs -- including, both polygamy and a decidedly Sharia-like approach to the issue of free speech. We put the customs and values of immigrants on a moral par with the customs and values of Canadians whose families have lived in Canada for decades or more. If that is our attitude -- and Steyn seems to assume it is a common facet of (post-)modernity -- we shouldn't pretend it won't have consequences, both good and bad. The question is, are the benefits of the multicultural/mosaic attitude worth what it will cost us?
And note, for libertarians, this isn't (only) a question about what the state's immigration policy ought to be. As Steyn might say, it's more about our confidence in our own values, and the social pressure we're willing to put on others in an effort to ensure they come to adopt at least some of those values. Sometimes it seems like the multiculturalists think that _any_ amount of social pressure is too much. If every culture really is on a moral par, they might be right about that. But if we refuse to exert social pressure, to pass judgment, to criticize, that doesn't mean that those we refuse to judge as inferior won't judge us as inferior regardless of what we do.
Thus far, multiculturalism is a one way street (or, as Steyn indelibly put it , "Multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon.)
Posted by Terrence Watson on February 23, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/26423050
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mark Steyn on Multiculturalism:
Comments
There are a number of laws that should be static and seen as essential to our freedom in Canada, not up for dispute by those who would be inconvenienced by them. They would include protection from other individuals and from government in the case of assault, murder, theft, fraud, value imposition, etc., and the protection of property rights.
Other than that, I really don't give a damn if someone wants to come here, marry four men six women and a kitchen table, worship clouds shaped like rabbits, surround themselves with their beloved pet snails and sell mud from your back yard for a living (though I wouldn't want to see such people supported by the state so they could continue to sell mud).
There are tremendous social pressures to assimilate to our culture whether we're imposing them on someone or not. The only additional pressure I'd like to see from Canada is a firm stand for protection of things like freedom of speech and protection of property, and quite frankly I'd like to see Canada stop trying to change those things on its own while it's at it.
Posted by: Janet | 23-Feb-08 7:37:21 AM
Janet, you are arguing for the protections stemming and provided to you by guess what - Western culture.
You are arguing that we should assimilate others but that assimilation is wrong. Those protections you cite do not (predominantly) exist in other cultures, and as Steyn argues - it's a sheer numbers game, and you will be outnumbered and outvoted, if voting will exist. As for standing alone - to whom much is given, much is expected.
Posted by: momathome | 23-Feb-08 10:08:55 AM
I really enjoyed both Janet's and momathome's post as they seemed to be (at least to me) somewhat complementary and symmetrical.
I can appreciate Janet's wishes for having the basics and maximizing freedom without intrusive meddling to do my own thing (up until I reach my neighbour's nose).
Yet momathome recognizes that there was an evolutionary process that provided the infrastructure that gave us our good society in the first place and unfortunately, it is being eaten by the termites who are abusing those freedoms (often by way of misunderstanding their genesis).
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 23-Feb-08 10:28:14 AM
Ah... Janet, we don't have property rights in Canada.
Posted by: Jerri | 23-Feb-08 10:47:38 AM
...yeah I remember being indoctrinated back in the 70's how good Canada was and how back the US was.
I also always had the though in the back of my head of 'so why then is everyone trying to sneak, move, marry into the US?'
I for one, at a time wilst upon a southern belle.
Posted by: tomax7 | 23-Feb-08 11:34:30 AM
Terrence, thanks for posting the clip. I enjoyed it immensely. Too bad his point of view is banned by our p-c media in Canada.
Posted by: Rick H | 23-Feb-08 12:42:24 PM
>>Ah... Janet, we don't have property rights in Canada.
I know, and I voted for Harper like a sucker when he mentioned them.
What I was trying to speak out against here was the extension of assimilation that so often goes to the point of trying to make people give up their religion or culture. Hence the marrying all those people and a kitchen table example - I don't want the assimilation to extend to, for instance, having to have Christian family values.
Other than that I seem to agree with everyone here... for once. ;)
Posted by: Janet | 23-Feb-08 6:28:14 PM
Considerations on Representative Government
Book by John Stuart Mill; H. Holt and Co., 1890. 348 pgs.
"Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any
force, there is a primâ facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. This is merely saying that the question of government ought to be decided by the governed. One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do, if not to determine, with which of the various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate themselves. But, when a people are ripe for free institutions, there is still a more vital consideration. Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, can not exist. The influences which form opinions
and decide political acts, are different in the
different sections of the country. An alto
gether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities, than from the common arbiter, the state. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. That any one of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler, is sufficient to determine another to support that policy. Even if all are aggrieved, none feel that they can rely on the others for fidelity in a joint resistance; the strength of none is sufficient to resist alone, and each may reasonably think that it consults its own advantage most by bidding for the favour of the government against the rest."
Mill's position, essentially, is recognising that the institution's of freedom, speech, association and opposition to governmental tyranny cannot exist in a heterogeneous environment. They are, as Canadians discovered, impossible to maintain. And the fundamental freedom Mill recognises, above all others, is the freedom to determine with which humans they will associate.
"One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do, if not to determine, with which of the various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate themselves."
Posted by: DJ | 23-Feb-08 7:53:08 PM
Well said Janet. However these groups retaining their own culture, values and language are the result of our official multiculuralism. Considering that the government officially encourages new immigrants to retain their culture and values and even assists them financially to do so, is it any wonder that we have such a mess now. When the passport office in Vancouver believes it necessary to have a sign reading: Passport Office, Bureau des passeports and the same in about ten other languages (all foreign), you do have to wonder. If a person cannot understand passport office written in English and French, then how on earth can he or she qualify for a Canadian passport?
Furthermore we no longer have the same rule of law equally to everyone, thus special laws or considerations for special groups. Unity cannot exist in this environment and no country can exist without unity. By the way unity does not mean conformity.
Posted by: Alain | 23-Feb-08 8:53:19 PM
Multiculturalism is for people who don't have a culture of their own.
Posted by: John West | 24-Feb-08 12:04:44 AM
Multi Culturalsim is based on "group" rights.
Group rights is an oxymoron. Rights are only rights when they pertain individuals. "ALL" individuals. Pitting one groups rights against another groups rights ignores the individual and pits one group against another serving only to divide us further. Its a beautiful concept for our socialist government.
A large divided majority squabbles over petty things while we remain controlled by a small well organized minority. Priceless!
Posted by: JC | 24-Feb-08 3:30:07 PM
What a great post on Mill, DJ.
It has been said that we can never have freedom until the different groups - gays, gun owners, MJ smokers etc come together against gov't.
As it stands, those groups are busy trying to court gov't favor. Tyranny loves an ass kisser.
Posted by: Veteran | 24-Feb-08 5:09:47 PM
Veteran,
I'm not against gov't. It's a necessary evil. However, I am against the ever present, ever growing montrous hydra that gov't inevitably becomes.
Humans are flawed but capable of great achievements when their energies are properly directed. Government is a product of human genius, hence flawed but powerful.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 24-Feb-08 5:45:03 PM
H2: So you are for small gov't? How small?
I say no evil is necessary and I don't understand why people think a little Hitler is good for society as long as we keep him in check.
Read "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans Hermann Hoppe.
Gov't is NOT the product of genius. Gov't is the parasite that steals from the productive (productive by way of genius or hard work).
I agree that humans are capable of great achievements, but that is impossible when gov't steps in. Your business plan can grind to a sudden halt when the gov't decides to go on a stealing rampage.
See Petro-Can go to Libya for less gov't intervention.
Gov't is the great crippler of the genius. See the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Veteran | 24-Feb-08 6:35:02 PM
So give us an example of a geat non-government vet. Or are you thinking that we need to rise up and dismantle everything to show people how it's done? Or better yet, are you just advocating a country built on the barter system? I'm curious where you're going with this anarchy thing...
Posted by: Markalta | 24-Feb-08 8:18:21 PM
On Free Immigration and Forced Integration
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"For the purpose of illustration, let us first assume an anarcho-capitalist society. Though convinced that such a society is the only social order that can be defended as just, I do not want to explain here why this is the case. Instead, I will employ it as a conceptual benchmark, because this will help clear up the fundamental misconception of most contemporary free immigration advocates.
All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc.. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.
Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a "freedom to move around," unless other property owners consent to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregagtion, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.
Note that none of this, not even the most exclusive form of segregationism, has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. To the contrary, it is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation – the absence of any form of forced integration – that makes peaceful relationships – free trade – between culturally, racially, ethnically, or religiously distinct people possible.[...]
Moreover, with the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties. Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism). Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism)."
Posted by: DJ | 24-Feb-08 11:25:21 PM
Veteran,
I see you think in absolutes.
"I say no evil is necessary and I don't understand why people think a little Hitler is good for society as long as we keep him in check."
Please show me a the Canadian Hitler. While I intensely disliked Trudeau, even he didn't put people in cattle cars and he certainly didn't make the trains run on time.
"I agree that humans are capable of great achievements, but that is impossible when gov't steps in."
Impossible? Sometimes. Often just more difficult. Occasionally beneficial.
"Gov't is the great crippler of the genius. See the Soviet Union."
See the United States for an opposite example. While not perfect, I would say she has generally, at least up until now, encouraged her citizens to be quite industrious, creative, and generous.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 25-Feb-08 4:30:08 AM
What a great discussion and clip! Have not seen or heard Steyn before, though I've read his articles. Thanks TW.
Posted by: Seawalker | 25-Feb-08 10:40:40 AM
Post a comment