For sometime I have been writing articles and commentaries whose focus was to oppose 'political multiculturalism'. I've always made it clear that I believe that all should be welcome, but what I object to is the way 'multiculturalism' is preached.
W.James Antle III, the author of the article, wrote: ...the society into which they immigrate needs the determination and clear cultural identity to effectively demand such assimilation.....You need newcomers who are willing and able to assimilate, dominant culture that is willing and able to require them to do so and admissions that are not so large that they undermine these objectives.
With all of these points I agree, but with another point, I find myself with a slightly different opinion.
But many people who sing the praises of cultural diversity and mass immigration the loudest don’t take any culture seriously other than their own. Their casual assumption is that their way of life is so self-evidently superior, and the economic incentives for integration so irresistibly powerful, that all well-intentioned people will naturally want to assimilate.
One thing that I have noticed about the Australian 'multicultural activists', is that they seem to have in common a concerted desire to denigrate their own traditional culture. They do this in a multitude of ways, but the most obvious is their attack on traditional religion.
A few years ago, one major department store chain, refused (after 11 straight years) to allow the local Christian Ministers fraternal, to display in their Stores at Christmas, a nativity scene. This was done so as not to offend the 'non-Christian'. At the same time however, no one seemed to think that closing off the streets of Sydney for the Ramadan March was in anyway offensive to Christians; nor the turning over of Southbank Parklands to a celebration of Buddha's birthday.
From this perspective then, I would have to disagree with the article when it says that they only take their own culture seriously. It seems to me that the 'multicultural activists' in Australia, think quite the reverse. They have even publically stated so: 'Australia has no traditional culture".
On the other hand, I do agree with the inherent point of Antle's statement, that the multiculturalists do in fact, see themselves as 'very superior'. It is always something that bothers me when I hear or read of the 'elites' damning people for expressing their disapproval with this or that about an ethnic group. These self righteous "activists" immediately make accusations of racism or discrimination. I for instance, am "Racist" against the Chinese - which must be why I have chosen to remain in China?
The very act of intervening, is of itself a demonstration of the 'superiority' of the activists, for they consider that the poor helpless, ethnic this or that, is incapable of replying, taking action, considering the matter, or entering into a personal and friendly discussion on the topic.
No! The self righteous must become the 'Saviour' of the 'downtrodden' ethnic minority person or group. People with 'saviour' complexes or behaviours, are, from a psychological perspective, not quite 'holistically stable' individuals.
The reason I offered my thanks here today, is that the article prompted me to clarify my thoughts, which are:
Yes! Multicultural activists do see themselves as superior. They have Saviour complexes.
Yes! Immigration does bring with it problems that can be tempered by controlling the flow.
Yes! The host country must provide the immigrant with a recognisable dominant culture, if for no other reason than to show them 'where' to fit in.
Yes! Immigrants must desire to integrate.
Yes! When the values of the host societies are inferior to the 'immigrant core values', why should immigrants want to integrate.
Yes! When the host culture denigrates and demeans itself, why should the immigrant not do the same?
Yes! The whole matter of immigration and minority groups needs clear, logical and reasonable understanding and consideration - so activist groups should be kept out of it.
We have to stop allowing our hearts to be bled dry by activists.
This week in Australia, one Politician announced quite clearly, that Muslims who are not happy with Australian culture, should either shut up, or go home, but that those who turn to violence in reaction to the things they do not like in Australia, will be hunted down and punished. It's a free country! Like it or leave it!
THE prosecution of Iranian-born Sheik Haron, who is accused of sending vile letters to the families of dead Diggers, could lead to major citizenship law changes.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday said he would "reflect" on the citizenship status of a migrant if they had betrayed "certain undertakings" made when they became an Australian citizen.
All forms of abuse are serious, but the least recognised is Emotional Abuse. In the Article entitled: Emotional Abuse and Female Emotional Abusers this issue is examined. It touches upon Religious abuse, Political Activist abuse, Feminist Abuse, Child abuse, and Men who are abused by women.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
