Multiculturalism

Getting our So So critique on target

There's been much gnashing of teeth on the Right about some rather simplistic attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor charging her with being a "racist".

Well, this is inflammatory, overblown and self-defeating.  It's pretty obvious that the frequent and deliberate "wise latina" comments don't rise to the commonly understood level of the term; nor is there evidence in her opinions that rises to this level.

On the other hand, a less emotionally charged term might fit here.  Do the numerous speeches given by Judge Sotomayor represent that she believes in multiculturalism?   

The traditional American cultural template is that while each group that enters our society enriches us, all join in a common nation sharing common goals.  E Pluribus Unum and all that. Multiculturalism turns this on its head, that we are members of separate groups first, and Americans to the extent we choose to align ourselves.

from Wikipedia: 

In 1991, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a former advisor to the Kennedy and other US administrations and Pulitzer Prize winner, published a book with the title The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. Schlesinger states that a new attitude — one that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation — may replace the classic image of the melting pot, in which differences are submerged in democracy. He argues that ethnic awareness has had many positive consequences to unite a nation with a "history of prejudice"; however, the "cult of ethnicity", if pushed too far, may endanger the unity of society. According to Schlesinger, multiculturalists are "very often ethnocentric separatists who see little in the Western heritage other than Western crimes." Their "mood is one of divesting Americans of their sinful European inheritance and seeking redemptive infusions from non-Western cultures."

There's a big difference between the usual bean counting by ethnic, geographic and political groups (which it's clear Judge Sotomayor has engaged in) and being a multiculuralist.  I too want to see people of my background properly represented in the institutions of society. A multiculturalist wants to do this to change the institution itself. It's reasonable to ascertain if a nominee seeks to accomplish that and determine how comfortable we are with that approach.

The frequent appearance by this jurist before a group labelling itself "La Raza" is a reasonable place of inquiry: to what extend does she share this group's goals and agenda and to what extent does that influence her future judicial conduct?  Certaintly it is as reasonable a point of inquiry as whether a jurist is a member of the Federalist Society

In this venue, the summary treatment of the Ricci case may provide insight: that a reverse discrimination claim appeared not to be of sufficient weight  to warrant an elaborate legal  review. Perhaps the Judge doesn't see when do we reach the end of the affirmative action road as viewed by Justice O'Connor?.

I also reject that all Hispanic lawyers and jurists are of similar mind on these points: to that end I'd like to hear from the likes of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz on this nominee's agenda.

In the late 1990's former NYC Mayor Giuliani challenged the application of multiculturalism in the administration of justice.  His approach was "One City, One Standard".  As a NY resident, it should be hard for the Judge not to have an opinion on the wisdom and efficicacy of Giuliani's race-neutral approach to governance.  The rest of America ought to get a sense where she stands on this. 

And abrasive name calling simply makes it easier for her to duck the important philosophical questions she ought to address. 

Judge Sotomayor is an experienced appellate jurist who is qualified to be promoted and probably will be confirmed. Are we going to use this to make this a teachable moment on what judicial policies we favor, or will we just let this pass?  

 

The Moral Confusion in the West

Last Sunday in "A Landmark: the Moment of Infamy we reported on an outrage in Duisburg, Germany in which the police - in order to deescalate a explosive situation with a raving pro Hamas crowd - broke in and entered the private premises of a Israeli sympathizer in order to remove two 'offensive' Israeli flags (see the post for video footage of the event).

Occurrences that like cross the ethics Rubicon in that police officers, servants of the state (i.e. of all of us), are seen bowing to an angry, intolerant mob.

Israel Matzav today has further information on the case and states that the incident has rightly upset a lot of people in Germany; this may not be the end of it. We sincerely hope so.

The mob is now known to have consisted of members of the Turkish Nationalistic/Islamist organization Milli Görüs (caption: logo/flag), here described as a wolf in sheep's clothing for activities other than folk dancing. Whatever aim they pursue, it prevents Turks from assimilating in Western societies and as such, is a hazard. The incident is evidence of the organization's true character and the inroads it has managed to make on the psyche of the German authorities.

The tolerance the West is showing for the intolerant is temporarily culminating in unbridled antisemitism not seen here since World War II. The Duisburg flag owner was brave enough to take a stance against it, but failed to find the servants of the law on his side to defend his rights and property.

Police spokespersons meanwhile have gone from defending their actions, to apologies (probably not even realizing why they are at fault - or am I too pessimistic here?).

The Social Democratic Party (SPD), whom for years have pushed the "multicultural" agenda like there's no tomorrow, now want a debate in the state's parliament about the outrage. Why?

Have they renounced multiculturalism as a pernicious ideology and do they no longer believe in the premise that all cultures are equally valid? Do they think Israel, a. has the right to defend itself, and b. has no option but to destroy a terrorist hell hole which brutally murders its own citizens, children included? I don't think so.

The party describes the essence of the matter as follows (read that carefully): "Why was the potential for danger during the protest so underestimated that police were forced into a situation in which they had to concede to the demands of violent (protesters) rather than (protect) the right to the freedom of speech of others?"

Israel Matsav's blogger Carl rephrases that as follows: "Actually, the central question is why police conceded to the demands of violent protesters rather than protecting the freedom of speech of others (...) If Europe wants to save itself from the Islamic onslaught, it had better learn the difference between those two questions."

The problem as usual is the relativist default position which is killing Western culture and debilitates the ability to defend against hostile self-realizationists.

The irony is, that while relativists see any absolutism as the epitome of evil (full stop), the Postmodern dialectic translates that into "any absolutism emanating from evil Western culture, 'oppressed' minorities" exempted.

- Caption: cartoon Henry Payne -

As long as that is the default morality propagated by intellectuals, the media and officials, the West is careering headlong into the abyss of cultural suicide.

The default position should be: Western laws and values prevail in this country and hence on we have a zero-tolerance policy with regard to any form of intolerance. Objectivity is key, no more compensating minorities for perceived inequalities. Any form of apartheid is unacceptable.

If that doesn't change - rapidly - we're doomed, doomed ...

- Filed on Articles in "In Defense of Liberty"

Syndicate content