A Left Wing view of the problems with multiculturalism in Europe

screen-shot-2016-09-25-at-9-53-06-am

The author of the book The Trojan Horse: A Leftist Critique of Multiculturalism in the West points out that in their eagerness to avoid accusations of racism, left-leaning liberals have abandoned traditionally progressive liberal principles. He points out that the pluralist multiculturalism that the UN has forced onto Sweden, and other European states is just as fixated on race as the racists they condemn. He also points out that multiculturalism ignores the rights of dissenting minorities within the religious and ethnic groups as they view them as one homogenous group.

Mainstream self-styled ‘progressives’ tend to think of multiculturalism and diversity as inherently good things – ideas that only the racist and bigoted would contest. Which is why Swedish sociologist Goran Adamson’s new book, The Trojan Horse: A Leftist Critique of Multiculturalism in the West, is such a welcome intervention. It provides a definitive critique of the ideology of diversity, and it does so from a progressive perspective. In particular, it shows how reason, freedom and individuality – the cornerstones of democracy and civil rights – are being undermined by the ideology of multiculturalism

…he was commissioned by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to determine the best methods for increasing political participation among immigrant groups in Europe.

…he discovered that the separate-but-equal model of a pluralist, multicultural society was less effective at encouraging political participation among immigrant groups

…Adamson’s report, Immigrants and Political Participation, was quickly dismissed, even by those who commissioned it.

…Adamson argues that the methods and theories of multiculturalists are similar to those of right-wing extremists: both want to force reality to conform to their worldview, rather than respond to it as it really is.

There are other parallels between multiculturalism and old-fashioned racial thinking. For instance, as Adamson points out, multicultural ideology makes a fetish, like the racial theories of yore, of ethnic diversity. What matters is not, as Martin Luther King believed, the content of one’s character, but the colour of one’s skin.

…In this sense, multiculturalism is just as fixated on race as the racist thought of the past.

…the multicultural view of immigrants doesn’t treat them as individuals who have a basic human need for self-determination; rather, ‘the immigrant’ is an abstract type, a species, a race.

…The ‘other’ is presented as either inherently fascinating or as a fragile victim. They are not like us. And in this separation of us from them, racism festers

The key planks in the pluralist multiculturalist agenda are value pluralism and moral relativism. These imply that all moral beliefs, from the liberal to the authoritarian, are equally legitimate; and that all moral judgements are relative or subjective.

…liberalism explicitly sets itself up as a neutral framework for the equal coexistence of multiple ideologies.

…It demands one thing only of citizens: namely, that all individuals adhere to rules of reciprocal tolerance, and do not encroach upon the liberty of others.

…it is a set of rules governing the relationship between diverse ideologies within a state. This is why liberalism protects real diversity so much better than the pluralist multiculturalism that has been foisted on Adamson’s Sweden, and other European states, by EU bureaucrats.

British multiculturalists fear being seen as a tyrannical majority. And they pour scorn on French assimilationist policies. Indeed, they actively counteract efforts towards integration, assimilation and inclusion.

…They view ‘annihilation’ of the other as an exclusively Western phenomenon. When it comes to ethnic groups themselves, the rights of dissenting minorities within these groups are rarely defended. That’s because the multicultural agenda treats ethnic subcultures as homogeneous groups, as though individuals within them uniformly share a common identity defined solely by their common heritage or religion. Thus, annihilation of the other is acceptable, so long as the majority responsible for doing so is ethnic.

We have to protect ‘their’ difference from us, it seems, but never the ethnic dissident’s individuality or ‘difference’ from their own cultural traditions. Adamson cites the example of Tasleem Begum from Bradford, who, after leaving her husband (from a forced marriage), was shot in the head by her brother-in-law. The brother-in-law’s sentence was commuted from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of ‘provocation’, stemming from the shame Begum had brought on her husband’s family’s honour.

… the political and cultural impact of immigration and people’s concerns about a lack of integration need to be taken seriously.

-spiked-online.com


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

If you agree with me that’s nice, but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo, look between the lines and do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.

You can follow me on Gab.ai 

41%