I have lived in four countries and been an immigrant to three of them. Two countries required learning a new language and adapting to new cultural norms. In one case, before immigrating I was summoned to a formal interview at the country’s consulate where I was urged to start learning the language before immigrating, then I was handed a booklet on customs and etiquette (down to minutiae such as how greet your host and hostess, how to behave at the table, and much more) and urged to learn it well. The message was clear, if you want to come to our country you must adapt to us, it is not us who must adapt to you. As immigrants, this requires a lot of effort on our part, but it’s how we get accepted. If we intend to make our own community with our own language and beliefs that run counter to those of our host country, then we have immigrated under false pretences.
If you wish to come to terms about discussing the phenomenon a very significant step would be to recognise that issues of immigration and multiculturalism have become political "chores". IE they are no longer presented as matters of free consent to the electorate but duties to be borne regardless of whether you like them or not...
In other words we are no longer presented with the question of "do you want immigration to take place" and instead "how do you wish to handle immigrants you don't want but we will force you to take in anyway". Much of the anger and apparent "far-rightedness" of the anti side is sheer rebellion against this.
Politics of immigration are identical to politics of gender - policy is made by elites according to their predetermined wishes, with the electorate treated as an inconvenience to be managed. To use Wesley Yang's terminology: non-electoral politics of institutional capture.
People often conflate cultural relativism with multiculturalism. These are not the same thing. I am Jewish, and we have a long history of being oppressed for being different. Multiculturalism allows us to live freely as ourselves, without being forced to shed our Jewishness. A free society must not squash difference, must not force us all to be the same.
This does not mean embracing cultural relativism. For multiculturalism to work, we have to agree to some basic common values, most importantly the rule of law and respect for difference. Ironically, diversity requires gatekeeping. You have to exclude those who do not respect diversity or who would destroy the civil society on which our freedoms depend.
I believe strongly in multiculturalism. My daily work is providing Jewish education to non-Jewish children in non-Jewish schools. Because educating about difference is the best way to inoculate children against prejudice against those who are different. But this sort of work depends on liberal values. Without those values, it can be abused and used by those who would destroy our society.
It's not easy to get this right. But the solution is not to squash difference. I don't want to live in a society in which we have to all be the same. Such a society would destroy me.
They are not well served by reducing them to either-or propositions.
A couple of questions:
Re: evaluating people based on their skin color or religion vs. their personally held beliefs - When dealing with large groups, is there a practical way to discern any one individual's personally held beliefs?
Re: "those of us who don't associate national identity with skin colour" - Given that most nation-states' identities were established by racially homogeneous populations, why not?
I have personal examples of the granular-ness of the immigration issue at least how it is playing out in the US. It’s too lengthy (and granular) to explain here, but this piece has helped operationalize my response to our particular situation. (We own a carpentry and cabinetry business and work with tradespeople all the time).
I have lived in four countries and been an immigrant to three of them. Two countries required learning a new language and adapting to new cultural norms. In one case, before immigrating I was summoned to a formal interview at the country’s consulate where I was urged to start learning the language before immigrating, then I was handed a booklet on customs and etiquette (down to minutiae such as how greet your host and hostess, how to behave at the table, and much more) and urged to learn it well. The message was clear, if you want to come to our country you must adapt to us, it is not us who must adapt to you. As immigrants, this requires a lot of effort on our part, but it’s how we get accepted. If we intend to make our own community with our own language and beliefs that run counter to those of our host country, then we have immigrated under false pretences.
If you wish to come to terms about discussing the phenomenon a very significant step would be to recognise that issues of immigration and multiculturalism have become political "chores". IE they are no longer presented as matters of free consent to the electorate but duties to be borne regardless of whether you like them or not...
In other words we are no longer presented with the question of "do you want immigration to take place" and instead "how do you wish to handle immigrants you don't want but we will force you to take in anyway". Much of the anger and apparent "far-rightedness" of the anti side is sheer rebellion against this.
Politics of immigration are identical to politics of gender - policy is made by elites according to their predetermined wishes, with the electorate treated as an inconvenience to be managed. To use Wesley Yang's terminology: non-electoral politics of institutional capture.
People often conflate cultural relativism with multiculturalism. These are not the same thing. I am Jewish, and we have a long history of being oppressed for being different. Multiculturalism allows us to live freely as ourselves, without being forced to shed our Jewishness. A free society must not squash difference, must not force us all to be the same.
This does not mean embracing cultural relativism. For multiculturalism to work, we have to agree to some basic common values, most importantly the rule of law and respect for difference. Ironically, diversity requires gatekeeping. You have to exclude those who do not respect diversity or who would destroy the civil society on which our freedoms depend.
I believe strongly in multiculturalism. My daily work is providing Jewish education to non-Jewish children in non-Jewish schools. Because educating about difference is the best way to inoculate children against prejudice against those who are different. But this sort of work depends on liberal values. Without those values, it can be abused and used by those who would destroy our society.
It's not easy to get this right. But the solution is not to squash difference. I don't want to live in a society in which we have to all be the same. Such a society would destroy me.
I recently hosted an interfaith panel on the challenges involved in this. If anyone would like a listen. https://shirabatya.substack.com/p/but-which-religion-is-correct
As usual, crystal clear and well-reasoned.
As with many thorny issues, multiculturalism belongs to the family of subjects I call "multidimensional problems" (https://open.substack.com/pub/jonathanblake/p/multi-dimensional-problems).
They are not well served by reducing them to either-or propositions.
A couple of questions:
Re: evaluating people based on their skin color or religion vs. their personally held beliefs - When dealing with large groups, is there a practical way to discern any one individual's personally held beliefs?
Re: "those of us who don't associate national identity with skin colour" - Given that most nation-states' identities were established by racially homogeneous populations, why not?
Looking forward to further installments!
I have personal examples of the granular-ness of the immigration issue at least how it is playing out in the US. It’s too lengthy (and granular) to explain here, but this piece has helped operationalize my response to our particular situation. (We own a carpentry and cabinetry business and work with tradespeople all the time).
Great food for thought. Thank you Helen