Home / Opinions / Assimilation causes division

Assimilation causes division

Written by Taylor Stone

 

If the next three sentences strike you as anything other than “normal,” or if you answer “no” to any of the following questions, you are most likely among the majority of Americans who openly embrace the concept of multiculturalism–even if you know absolutely nothing about it.

1. Have you ever been annoyed by the fact that you are forced to select a language before completing a financial transaction at every ATM machine in the U.S.?

2. Have you ever been troubled while attending a lecture that seems to focus primarily on the degradation of Western culture or highlight only the injustices that have taken place throughout American history?

3. Does it seem odd to you that individuals who were once labeled “illegal aliens” are instead now referred to as “undocumented workers?”

If you wanted to answer “yes” but would instead answer “no” if asked these same questions in a public forum, it would most likely be due to the fear of being labeled a racist, xenophobe, hate-monger, or some similar derogatory term. This unfortunate reality is one of the many barriers that continue to prevent an honest and fact-based discussion of multiculturalism and the well-intentioned goals that every society should embrace and strive for.

Multiculturalism refers to the idea that “outside groups” with proud and long-held cultural identities can freely migrate into and peacefully coexist with a pre-existing majority society/culture, while not pursuing (and in some cases rejecting) assimilation into that culture’s identity. In turn, the dominant/majority society subverts their own identity and willingly accepts the “outside group” in the name of tolerance and/or “ethnic diversity.” Over time, however, this can lead to dangerous and even deadly consequences.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, has said that attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany, “has failed, utterly failed,” arguing that immigrants haven’t done enough to integrate themselves into German society.

David Cameron, British Prime Minister, stands against multiculturalism in Britain, arguing that housing extremist ideologies will lead to Islamic terrorism.

“We have even tolerated segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values,” Cameron said. “All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and believe in can lead them to extremist ideology.”

On a micro-level, simplistic forms of multiculturalism can work wonderfully–because it occurs organically. I challenge anyone to point to a successful business or a thriving family that doesn’t have at least a couple of individuals who are extremely different from the “majority” of its other members in any variety of classifications. Family and business decisions are made on one’s own volition based on individual circumstances and scenarios.

On a macro-level, and when mandated by a governmental authority or central planner, multiculturalism can only be successful for short periods of time before human nature and reality take hold (i.e. Great Britain and Germany for the most recent examples). After that, multiculturalism can only be propagated as a viable societal model via academic theory or through manufactured statistics and false claims. Does this mean that all societal majorities are evil conglomerates of racists?–of course not.

In fact, one could easily make the case that the American Civil War was a “textbook example” of the unintended consequences that always arise whenever multiculturalism is forced upon a society. The sub-culture of slavery and those who supported it was antithetical to the majority-culture’s societal identity–the two cultures could not peacefully co-exist because their core values were incompatible. Slavery literally tore apart the fabric of American society to the point where the dominant culture was forced to take violent and necessary action to preserve its own existence.

When one individual makes a personal attack against another during an intellectual debate, it’s a sure sign that he or she has officially lost the argument and conceded defeat. So let’s be serious here–if a family moved in next door to you and communicated with each other using only text messaging and roasted buzzard carcasses in their front yard every morning for breakfast, would you be excited about inviting them over for dinner? If you say “no” then that makes you a bird-hating pro-illiteracy zealot.

Check Also

Editorial: Stanford University students spark conversation about free speech

Recently, Stanford University has been the subject of controversy involving a conversation around freedom of ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *