Having just read some of this treatiseon multiculturalism, I couldn't stomach the whole thing, I have to ask, what is the motivation behind this "multicultural" impetus over the last decade or so?
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Asante1.html
What I find strange here is that the very idea of multiculturalism is opposed to unity. Multi cannot equate with Uni. Therefore in order to promote unity within society surely "uniculturalism"should be promoted.
By this I mean that a blending of cultures would create a unity amongst people as opposed to multiculturalism which means we all do our own thing and others must tolerate that. Surely, that is not unity.
While tolerance is a very important quality it does not guarantee unity. It just means that we put up with the differences.
It is true unity requires a common goal and belief. I do not mean religious belief but a belief in the rights of others too choose their own life and destiny, to allow others to hold differing religious beliefs. That is common belief, belief in the rights and value of other human beings. Thus if I really want unity within the society in which I live surely, instead of trying to enforce my rights to be different, I should try to promote the common values and ideals of the community, and equally as important, the community must promote my, and others, right to self determination.
In my lifetime I have seen "multiculturalism", in my opinion, prove to be one of the most divisive philosophies in human history.
I don't know that many will agree on this, in fact I doubt it very much because modern political correctness denies the value and validity of individual thought and opinion.
Education, in particular, should not be a matter of cultural viewpoint but of truth and accuracy. The British colonization of India, for example, needs to be evaluated in terms of what it accomplished and what it inflicted upon the native peoples. Comparison with other regimes of the time is also valid abut comparison with modern ideas of governance and philosophy is ludicrous because the governors of the time did not have the advantage of modern education and philosophy.
I believe that we are headed for a confrontation. One which will not be averted by multiculturalism or any other chick, politically correct agenda. A confrontation between those who value freedom of thought and speech and those who value doctrine and conformity.
We shall see.
We need to get real with ourselves.
Are we enforcing our rights in society or championing the rights of society?
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Asante1.html
What I find strange here is that the very idea of multiculturalism is opposed to unity. Multi cannot equate with Uni. Therefore in order to promote unity within society surely "uniculturalism"should be promoted.
By this I mean that a blending of cultures would create a unity amongst people as opposed to multiculturalism which means we all do our own thing and others must tolerate that. Surely, that is not unity.
While tolerance is a very important quality it does not guarantee unity. It just means that we put up with the differences.
It is true unity requires a common goal and belief. I do not mean religious belief but a belief in the rights of others too choose their own life and destiny, to allow others to hold differing religious beliefs. That is common belief, belief in the rights and value of other human beings. Thus if I really want unity within the society in which I live surely, instead of trying to enforce my rights to be different, I should try to promote the common values and ideals of the community, and equally as important, the community must promote my, and others, right to self determination.
In my lifetime I have seen "multiculturalism", in my opinion, prove to be one of the most divisive philosophies in human history.
I don't know that many will agree on this, in fact I doubt it very much because modern political correctness denies the value and validity of individual thought and opinion.
Education, in particular, should not be a matter of cultural viewpoint but of truth and accuracy. The British colonization of India, for example, needs to be evaluated in terms of what it accomplished and what it inflicted upon the native peoples. Comparison with other regimes of the time is also valid abut comparison with modern ideas of governance and philosophy is ludicrous because the governors of the time did not have the advantage of modern education and philosophy.
I believe that we are headed for a confrontation. One which will not be averted by multiculturalism or any other chick, politically correct agenda. A confrontation between those who value freedom of thought and speech and those who value doctrine and conformity.
We shall see.
We need to get real with ourselves.
Are we enforcing our rights in society or championing the rights of society?
