The Chimera of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism emerged as an umbrella term in the 1980s
and 1990s, indicative of our changing demographics. Multiculturalism is clearly
to be preferred to either a system of apartheid or forced assimilation. And the
concept enjoys broad public support. However, there is no standard definition
of multiculturalism. A thin definition of the term equates multiculturalism
with tolerance of diversity. A somewhat richer understanding of
multiculturalism proffers that a multicultural society accepts and incorporates
the values, beliefs, and ideas of people from diverse cultural backgrounds. An
even denser and thicker definition of multiculturalism suggests that the
concept embodies the celebration of diverse cultures and empowers diverse cultural
groups to claim a greater measure of equality with others in the public square.
Because multiculturalism is an umbrella concept the breadth
of groups and concerns that cluster under its shelter is breathtaking. Multiculturalism
includes all groups protected by the American Disabilities Act, demands respect
for all holidays, offers protection against discrimination in employment, encourages
the development of educational curriculum that respects racial and ethnic
diversity, and much more. For some advocates, multiculturalism is a
rights-based concept that applies both to individuals and groups. Accordingly,
everyone has equal rights, and society has a moral and legal obligation to
respect and protect the rights of each person and group.
The concept of multiculturalism has broad appeal in a
liberal democratic society—within limits. The rights associated with
multiculturalism are civil rights. When the norms of multiculturalism begin to
impinge on political and economic rights we often witness increasing tension
among diverse groups and popular support for multiculturalism softens. A desire
on the part of the majority to maintain the status quo and the appearance of
social unity outweighs the urgency of change for the sake of greater inclusion.
Multiculturalism has its place, and it must be kept in its place. Enduring
poverty in the midst of abundance and recent battles over voting rights witness
to a retreat from multiculturalism in these areas of public life.
The retreat from multiculturalism is due neither to a lack
of awareness of the need for change, nor a want of desire on the part of
well-meaning citizens to “do good.” Like the myth of the “melting pot,” the
impetus for multiculturalism comes from a strong desire to remain true to the
creed of E Pluribus Unum. What is
missing in this effort to preserve unity is an adequate understanding of our
historical context. It is this failure that turns an otherwise noble intent
into a chimera.
Many Native American scholars and historians like David
Chang and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz are helping us understand that everything in US
history—nation, race, and class—is about the land. Who controls the land and
determines how the land is used is a—perhaps the—central theme in US history.

Non-Indian people are beginning to understand that the real
history of the United States is defined by settler-indigenous relations.
Indigenous Peoples owned the land, the settlers wanted and needed the land, and
with the blessing of the church they took the land. Setters invoked the
quasi-religious doctrines of Terra Nullius
(empty land) and the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination to justify
Indian genocide. The philosopher John Locke provided the necessary
justification for taking the land. He argued that the settlers were defending
the superior European civilization and religion (Christianity) against the
“pagans” and “wild beasts.” Because the settlers were obligated to defend their
superior way of life against the threat posed by the Indians, the Indians were
obligated to pay for the cost of the war waged upon them. Taking the land was,
in Locke’s view, just compensation paid to the settlers by the indigenous
pagans.

David Hansen
No comments:
Post a Comment