Skip to main content

Lessons from the London Bombing--Say no to Multiculturalism

Here are some great posts on the unlearning of multiculturalism in Europe. It would serve us all a lesson well learned if we paid closer attention to the lessons of the London bombing, and all the other consequences of European progressiveness. Jeff Jarvis:
When it turned out that the London bombings were carried out by four young Muslim men born in England, it seemed to give a lie to Tom Friedman's theory that Muslim terrorism sprouts from the anger of young men in Arab nations who have no hope of economic prosperity and freedom.

Here were young men who may not have been born into Windsor Castle, but they were living in a land of freedom and opportunity. So how can they be portrayed as anything other than what they are: murderers?

As Jeff points out, leave it to the New York Times to provide justification for the London Bombers--they where just 4 angry young men. You can't blame them, can you?
"I don't approve of what he did, but I understand it. You get driven to something like this, it doesn't just happen."

To the boys from Cross Flats Park, Mr. Tanweer, 22, who blew himself up on a subway train in London last week, was devout, thoughtful and generous. If they understood his actions, it was because they lived in Mr. Tanweer's world, too.

They did not agree with what Mr. Tanweer had done, but made clear they shared the same sense of otherness, the same sense of siege, the same sense that their community, and Muslims in general, were in their view helpless before the whims of greater powers. Ultimately, they understood his anger.

The news that four British-born Muslim men from neighborhoods around Leeds were suspected of carrying out the bombings in London has made the shared dissatisfaction of boys like these and the creeping militancy of some young British Muslims an urgent issue in Britain.

The bombers are an exception among Britain's 1.6 million Muslims. But their actions have highlighted a lingering question: why are second-generation British Muslims who should seemingly be farther up the road of assimilation rejecting the country in which they were born and raised?

You can thank strong conservatives, intellectuals with a backbone and enough intelligence to know better when it comes to multiculturalism. That is why I say, I am an American first, a Hispanic by heritage, but a US citizen and proud patriot always!

Multiculturalism is of another era and should be scrapped. That conclusion, expressed last year by Trevor Phillips, caused a sensation. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), which he chairs, was founded to promote multiculturalism and governments of both parties pursued that policy since the 1960s. Phillips went further: “We need to assert there is a core of Britishness.” He lamented the “loss” of Shakespeare. “That sort of thing is bad for immigrants,” he said, who come here not just for jobs but because of Britain’s tolerance and parliamentary democracy.

Despite the CRE’s retreat, immediately after the London bombings the prime minister referred to Britain as tolerant, multi-ethnic and multicultural. It’s clear from the way he spoke that he regarded those three words as interchangeable. One reason why we in Britain have enjoyed a broad consensus on multiculturalism is that we have been so imprecise about what it means. Given that Britain has attracted waves of immigrants who in their new home still celebrate Passover, Ramadan or Diwali, to many it seemed to be just a statement of the obvious.

In the 1960s Enoch Powell foresaw immigration leading to rivers foaming with blood and was sacked from the Conservative party’s front bench for saying so. In 1990 Norman Tebbit talked of a cricket test, meaning that you doubted whether people were integrated into this country if they supported Pakistan or India when those teams played England. Those remarks embarrassed the Tories, too.

With those exceptions the respectable British right has left multiculturalism unchallenged out of fear that it would be accused of racism. Phillips’s remark indicates that multiculturalism has passed its high water mark. But that occurred because the left got cold feet, not because the right won the argument.

The American right has not been so passive. For example, the Ayn Rand Institute (which bears the name of the author of The Fountainhead, the bible of individualism) claims that: “Multiculturalism is the view that all cultures, from the spirits worshipping tribe to that of an advanced industrial civilisation, are equal in value.” It continues: “A culture that values freedom, progress, reason and science is good; one that values oppression, mysticism and ignorance is not.”

The institute has battled against such terms as “black American” on the grounds that they invite us to categorise a person according to his ancestry rather than his qualities as an individual. The voters of California rejected the use of teaching in Spanish, which had become standard practice in state schools. Victory went to those who argued that American children who could not speak English would founder in later life.

Read the rest of this piece by Michael Portillo in The Sunday Times of London. Hopefully, we don't have to wait for something like this to happen on our soil from home-grown terrorist for more people to wake up.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …