/* Google Analytics Code asynchronous */

Friday, February 9, 2007

Humanity is Multicultural

Faced with threat, every socio-political body-politic faces the decision whether to open up or to shut down, or, most importantly, how to practically manage some judicious combination.


From Australia's experience:


"Let's give three quiet cheers for the M-word
It is now six decades since Australia opened its doors to large-scale immigration. Shocked by the experience of near-invasion in World War II, politicians opened the doors to that war's victims - but only those from Europe. The White Australia policy still held sway, and the new arrivals had to be white enough to reassure the overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic natives that not much would change. Since then, other historic upheavals have pushed waves of migrants our way. With the White Australia Policy abandoned, they have come from backgrounds increasingly unlike those of the Anglo-Celtic majority. Multiculturalism was the policy introduced in the 1970s by the Whitlam government, and extended and elaborated on by its successors, to ensure the growing numbers of diverse immigrants could feel quickly at home in their adopted country. It has been a stunning success, strengthening Australia's economy and enriching its culture while reinforcing its social cohesion. Now, though, multiculturalism here, as elsewhere in the world, is under challenge.
...
Increasingly, multiculturalism is seen as aggravating divisions rather than tolerating difference.
...
All this suits the Prime Minister just fine. Mr Howard has been criticised by some, particularly on the left, for the way in which his dog-whistle techniques have managed to round up and bring to the Coalition voters who were straying in the late 1990s to the right fringe of politics, towards Pauline Hanson and One Nation. Perhaps he did, but no politician can be criticised for broadening his side's support. Australia, let us remember, was founded in part for racist reasons: the White Australia policy was widely supported and popular, particularly on the left. It would be a mistake to imagine that sentiment vanished with a snap of Gough Whitlam's fingers in the 1970s. Hansonism appealed to people - many of them previously Labor voters - who had never abandoned that basic xenophobia. Mr Howard's achievement was to win those voters for his party and, more importantly for the mainstream of politics, dilute their toxic attitudes in the broader, healthier current. He has done more for social cohesion and tolerance than his critics realise. link


And this one, brought to my attention by the oxblogers, with lessons of experience for those who might attempt policy afterwards (viz USA?):



Beyond boo-words like multiculturalism, the reality is that young British Muslims are deeply alienated

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday February 1, 2007
The "multiculturalism" slogan of the right is crude shorthand for the worrying facts of separation. These are the "parallel lives" identified in the 2001 Cantle report, which memorably quoted a British Muslim of Pakistani origin: "When I leave this meeting with you, I will go home and not see another white face until I come back here next week." Ghettoes is the less polite term. This separation, which is cultural and psychological as much as physical, was not originally created by policies of multiculturalism, but what went by the name of multiculturalism in some British cities in the 80s and 90s did reinforce the separation. It privileged group identities, defined by origins or religion, over British or individual ones. It did not bring home to the children of Muslim immigrants any strong sense of shared Britishness. And it sometimes allowed the oppression of women to continue under the cloak of cultural respect.

If the French went to one extreme, of attempted monocultural integration, we in Britain erred in the other direction. Cameron and Gordon Brown both agree that a correction is called for. At a minimum, the English language, British history and the core values of citizenship should be better conveyed. But there are tough calls they are shying away from. Take, for example, the contribution of faith schools to cultural separation. The Cantle report recommended that at least 25% of places in single-faith schools, be they state or private, should be given to children of alternative backgrounds. Why is it, I wonder, that we don't hear either Cameron or Brown calling for that recommendation to be implemented? One can just imagine how their middle-class voters would react to the prospect of Muslim children being bused in to the London Oratory school.

The "Islamophobia" slogan of the left is crude shorthand for the worrying facts of prejudice and stereotyping, which the right ignores at its peril. There is also overwhelming evidence, acknowledged by the intelligence services as well as by most independent analysts, that both the Iraq war and the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have contributed to the radicalisation of British Muslim youth.

Then there are elements that don't fit easily into the cliches of either left or right. For example, the Policy Exchange report highlights the way in which young British Muslims react against the hedonistic, promiscuous, binge-drinking, value-lite culture they see among their contemporaries.



sullylink