Has Europe lost the plot?
Christopher Caldwell is a brilliantly cold-eyed observer of the pieties of European multiculturalism. His essay in this month’s Prospect—an adapted extract from his new book—is a meditation on what happened when mass immigration collided with Europe’s postwar liberal universalism and its playing down of national tradition.
The answer is, of course, a great deal of confusion. “The range of opinions that Europeans can express has narrowed dramatically in recent years,” Caldwell writes. “Have Europeans acquired manners or lost their liberties?”
He is not just sneering at political correctness, although there is some of that too, he is trying to understand where it came from. And unlike so much commentary in this area Caldwell, an American, has a truly pan-European eye on these events.
Weigh in with your thoughts below.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
Excellent article. It is high time someone took a knife to the insane reality of European (and other) liberalism. The weakness and self-doubt generated by liberalism is playing into the hands of competing ideologies.
A thought-provoking article which articulates what many (especially conservatives) feel. There are many brilliant and honest insights here that I agree with.
It is true that “the European obsession with third world causes was a function of Europe’s new, guilt-based moral order”. But that guilt was rational. Europe had imposed it’s ideals on other cultures around the world for the best part of a century. There is/was quite rightly, a debt to be paid.
But it is true that that attitude may have been taken too far in the political establishment, not, I quickly add, in society as a whole. Racism is still alive and well in many parts of Europe. Fear, based on a longing for a national identity is creating strong vociferous noises from the nationalists and the rightwing. In England the BNP is becoming a serious political contender, something that was unthinkable a decade ago. Caldwell also forgets to mention little facts such as the banning of the hijab in schools in France, and Holland’s confrontational and openly racist minister who had widespread support.
History is a pendulum, and there’s a reason why it swings first one way and then the other. I see signs of the tide turning and I don’t like it. The decidedly intolerant malevolence of the Bush administration seems to have found sympathizers in Europe. Whilst America and Barack Obama try to shed the awful image of the past eight years, articles appearing all over Europe (particularly in Holland – a country that once prided itself on tolerance) appeal to native Europeans against immigration, not least of all from Britain’s brazenly nationalistic and xenophobic ‘Daily Mail’ newspaper which unashamedly spouts an anti-immigration ideology.
The recent UN conference on racism was a show of pure white solidarity when European, American, Israeli and Australian representatives unilaterally shunned Iran. In an ironic twist, Ahmadinejad’s ‘free’ speech was not even contested and debated (wouldn’t it have been a great opportunity to have a complete open and honest debate about racism, whereby everyone could express their views, no matter how controversial?).
Instead, the boycott and intolerance prevailed!
Only totalitarianism has a hope of preserving the offices and powers of those who have been driving this insane doomed-from-the-start experiment that has left someone like myself (decidedly NOT from the elites glossed as “Europeans” by the author) wondering if the events of late 1989 were more about absorbing the West into something necessitating tyranny than liberating the east from it. We proles continue to see our countries as our homelands rather than differentiated zones for economic activity or arbitrarily-inhabited spaces for the conduct of economically-driven social experiments that are an existential threat to us and all we hold dear.
It is the great irony of this debate that those who assume and seek to defend the superiority of “western culture” do not seem to have understood some of the philosophical basics of this culture.
It would indeed be stupid if somehow a small proportion of humanity had discovered a superior way of life and then through misguided good will, guilt and foolishness allowed it to disappear.
But the classic liberal, Enlightenment view is that people are basically the same, with the same hopes, fears and aspirations. Cultural differences are real but are contingent and mutable and just “noise” on top of these universals so in that sense are equally valid or invalid.
So forgive me if I am not too worried about “change”.
But feel free to cry into your warm beer with all of the other losers, inadequates and moaners about a mythical golden age where everyone was exactly like you. Thankfully that place never existed and never will in the future.
Good article, and I witnessed a lot of the damage done by multiculturalism at university.
Multiculturalism basically meant the white working class were blamed for most things domestic, and the Jews and their white supporters for everything global.
This nicely paved the way for Al Quaeda to build support.
The recent showing of mass public and political support for the Gurkhas in Britain demonstrates that the UK has awoken from what I saw as ‘Multicultural Fascism’ and now wants to choose what immigrants it allows in: friends rather than foes.
A good and thoughtful article. I agree with almost everything written here.
However I do not think that the culture of Europe is lost or irreparable. On the contrary; I think we are in the early stages of a backlash that will reassert the majority culture with a veangeance. For this reason I am in the early stages of leaving this country to move to Canada with my Indian wife and our child.
The coming backlash is in my view inevitable and in many respects necessary. The reactionary and obscuritanist aspects of immigrant cultures need to be challenged and dismantled. The immigrant popuklations must be obliged to integrate and links with countries of origin loosened. For a while all will go well, but it won’t stop there.
The pendulum will continue to swing and the reaction will engulf those who are already well integrated. Old prejudices will be revived and – at least for a time, we will move backwards.
IN teh long run I pray that all will be well, but in teh shgort run – the nexct 30-40 years, they will get a lot wosrse.
I cannot stay and watch my son become a stigmatised minority member in his own land, so the only option is to leave. Yet I do not blame the conservative right fdor vthis,. If the left had been less fanciful and stuck by its values, we would not be in this position now.
‘Ben’ wrote – “Cultural differences are real but are contingent and mutable and just “noise” on top of these universals so in that sense are equally valid or invalid.”
The world’s peoples as potential interchangeable machine parts to inaugurate an age of hyper-rational maximised economic efficiency – a glorious vision for the upwardly-mobile Marxists who expect to do well out of it.
“So forgive me if I am not too worried about “change”.”
Good luck with the operation, ducky.
If the programs of displacement, dispossesion and criminalization of dissent like those visited upon white countries had been put upon nations in Africa or Asia we would hear genocide from the mouths of the left.
Instead the false claims of anti-racism are made when in fact it is nothing but anti-white genocide. Genocide as being defined by the U.N. in 1948. Great article.
This article could be re-published without edits on http://bnp.org.uk/
A minor quibble, but Corinne Hofmann’s book “White Masai” really isn’t an “erotic autobiography”. It’s a fascinating study of the incompatibility of two cultures with quite a lot about disease and the difficulty of getting spare parts for the Landrover. Interesting article anyway.
I find much here with which to agree; and yet, something about this essay does not ring quite true. There is a tone of ‘doom’ about it and a sense of ‘inevitability’ which jars. If ‘Europe’ or ‘Europeans’ were so lacking in determination or willingness to stand up for traditional national values then they would never have come into being. The history of the 20th century in Europe is a actually a calamitous one, in which this struggle for mastery was beaten out in bombs and bullets and blood, something one might not gather in full from reading Mr Caldwell’s text.
True, there are instances and cases of startling conflict particularly in the application of religious beliefs in the social arena. Yet, the harmonisation since 1945 of Protestant and Catholic Europe has been remarkable if incomplete. The portrait of American race relations and the on-going destruction of urban communities is by contrast somewhat under drawn.
By emphasising the grotesque news headlines Mr Caldwell advances his thesis – that Europe is fundamentally and terminally sick and will be replaced by a culture which is more vigourous or less scrupulous, namely Islam. Yet, there are many signs of this not being true; strengthening resistance in Europe to the U.S.A.’s plans to have Turkey join the European Union, a case in point about which Mr Caldwell, an American, is strangely silent. In short Mr Caldwell does not really believe this will happen either; he wishes merely to urgently re-frame the response, one in which the post-War welfare consensus of Europeans will be replaced by a more conservative U.S. model, socially, economically and politically.
The open and plural society of Europe and it’s (highlighted here) system of welfare are seen by Mr Caldwell as weaknesses. Why? One senses a certain Neo-Conservative agenda at work beneath the surface of his text. But there are questions here for social progressives to address and calling Mr Caldwell a reactionary or a cheerleader for the British National Party is an easy evasion.
Not quite. It’s a vomit-inducingly bad book; the author’s relationship with a Maasai man is the sole reason it was published or read. The various cultures show every sign of being compatible, given the characters who manage to navigate three or four of them. ‘Erotic autobiography’ is a useful description.
Mr. Goodhart might want to broaden his range of research. He states “—what we would today call ‘‘multiculturalism’’—could hinder them in school, and further segregate them from society. Honeyford turned out to be right.”
On what evidence is Mr. Goodhart concluding this to be correct? In Canada, “multiculturalism” is certainly a recognized orientation and practice in all aspects of society including education. And yet, most second generation immigrant children catch up to their native-born peers in educational performance, and are in many respects vastly outperforming them in terms of post-secondary achievement and social mobility.
There are many variations and complexities within the evidence, with positive and negative trends, but understanding the differences is what makes a credible argument. As it stands, Mr. Goodharts statement is not only grotesquely reductionist, it is simply incorrect based on Canadian evidence. He might want to start by considering the class and economic barriers in some of the countries he cites that hinder social mobility for the many regardless of ethnicity, culture or race. And then consider how a biased, mobility impaired society might interact with immigrant integration and opportunities.
while there is much with which one can agree, the essay seems circular and inconclusive. there really is no reason to read anything but the first and last paragraphs.
the role of guilt, arising from the horrors of ww2, is ignored. the awful legacy of western humanism and its dark doppleganger white supremist colonialsim still play themselves out in a struggle that more monolithic cultures do not share.
This article claims that Swedish Lutheran preacher Åke Green was condemned to a month of prison for “citing the Bible’s disapproval of homosexuality”. That’s (arguably) partly true, but it doesn’t quite capture neither the message nor the overall tone of the preacher’s sermon. Just to take one concrete example of Åke Green’s rhetoric, directly after quoting a section on homosexuality from Leviticus he makes the following statement:
“Sexual abnormities are a deep-seated outgrowth of cancer on the whole of the body politic. The Lord knows that sexually deranged people will rape the animals. [...] The person who is a pedophile today didn’t start out as one. You simply begin by changing your way of intercourse. That’s how it begins.” [commentator's own translation from original Swedish taken from the full sermon made available by Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter]
Whatever one’s views on hate speech, I think most people would agree that “disapproval” isn’t really the proper term to describe the nature and content of these highly inflammatory remarks.
Europe’s immigration failure is not unique and in fact, is slowly being imitated by the U.S., Canada, Australia and other democracies. Sadly, we’ve allowed the pendulum of ethnocentrism to swing too far in the other direction. As a result, we’re reluctant to require immigrants to learn our particular language ,a prerequisite, to becoming a self-sufficient and productive member of their new societies. We’re allow our democracies to be undermined by theocracy, by denigration of women and by censorship, all the while upholding imported medieval practices and enclave building, as proof of our tolerance.
How much intolerance must we endure in the name of tolerance? This is the very reason I penned the novel “Up Dog Street” because we’re relinquishing our rights.
Ironically, that same political correctness led a couple of literary agents to say that my book is anti-immigrant. Imagine that: an immigrant (to America) writing an anti-immigrant novel. Toynbee was write when he said: “Civilizations die from suicide not murder.” We, Western democracies, may be on the eve of our own demise.
Ben said it best,Caldwell needs to crawl into a corner with warm beer for company.
Multiculturalism works perfectly under the assumption that all cultures are equal. Unfortunately that assumption is flawed.
Most people in the west think that people should not be affected by religion unless they choose to do so, and murder in the name of religion is abhorrent. Now you may be able to make an argument for either side, but cultures that do not see eye to eye on that issue are certainly not equal.
Unfortunately, all but a handful of western countries have a declining birth rate, and the governments of those countries are afraid that the future generations will not be able to sustain the social programs for the current, and the only solution their narrow minds can employ is immigration. So they need the public to buy off on immigration, and they sell it well. The same thing happened post world war two with the woman’s rights movement. Governments wanted more bodies generating more revenue, so they pushed the issue on all fronts. It was not the product of enlightened minds, it was the product of dwindling coffers just as it is now.
Currently people are concerned about their pocketbooks and the future of their children as well as the burden of humanity on the planet.
Lower the cost of living, so the 90 percent of us who make up the working class are no longer little more than slaves to the debt incurred by the cost of living and the debt our governments incur doing things we generally do not want them doing. This will afford people more time and money to have and raise children. That’s how governments need to deal with the declining birthrates.
To Ben:
I agree in general with that statement but it is the noise that it is of vital importance. Isn’t the noise what has caused the wars and the racism? According to the same classic liberal view in order to overcome the noise we need an open debate of all options in the public sphere so we can come to a rational conclusion. The author argues that this is not what is happening but that instead Europe is submitting itself to real cultural differences that it doesn’t agree with.
To Ron Wray:
In my experience the most successful immigrants in the US and Canada are those who have accepted their new cultures. In the US and Canada, many people of Arab and South Asian descent have made it a point to attempt to become as Canadian or American as possible. Most immigrants I know to the US and Canada have attempted to learn English as quickly as possible, have attempted to learn facts about their new countries respective histories as possible and have generally sought to integrate themselves as much as possible – whenever a new immigrant family from Vietnam or India has moved into my neighborhood I have always been invited for a large get together so that everyone can meet the new family on the block. It appears to me that this does not happen in Europe.
When determining national policies, there’s a lot to be said for optimism — provided the premisses on which our polices are based are sound. A major flaw with allegedly ‘progressive’ based on worldviews such as multiculturalism is that no one has ever come up with a clear explanation of exactly what it’s supposed to mean. This saves its extremely varied proponents the intellectually demanding task of spelling out what their policies actually mean, but it helps them feel good about themselves, a useful salve for their consciences.
Avoiding analysis of their ideals enables lounge chair ‘progressives’ to use allegedly anti-discrimination policies to support the sorts of discrimination they support, while feeling really good about themselves. Sadly their ’solutions’ are as intellectually well founded as, say, opponents of cancer believing they can improve things by passing legislation making cancer illegal.
The idiocy of such an approach to the problem pf cancer is easy to spot. Unfortunately, the well-meaning ‘progressives’ lack whatever is needed to understand the weaknesses of the same approach when it’s with less clearly defined social issues. Crash courses in logic and social science might help, but even that would depend upon the calibre of those conducting the courses.
Thank God my innate optimism keeps me going, no matter how disastrous current policies continue to be.
One thing Christopher Caldwell’s excellent article passes over lightly are the interesting asymmetries between (a) developed countries that have received people from less developed countries (for example, the EU), and (b) less developed countries that have receved people from developed countries (for example, Australia and New Zealand). In the latter, the predominant issue has traditionally been the rights of indigenous peoples, who have strenuously resented the effects of colonisation. Both Maori and Aboriginal peoples have blamed White colonists for the social and economic problems they face, and there are strong movements to preserve and enhance ethnic identity. In New Zealand this takes the forms of Maori-language-only schools, insistence on correct pronunciation, representation in local and national decision-making, ongoing land rights issues, and even calls for Maori sovereignty.
From this perspective, there would seem to be moral advantages to be had from being an “indigenous people”, such as the English, Scots or French. Interestingly, this advantage is usually removed by definition. On the one hand, the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples of the United Nations states that: “Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics, including the right to identify themselves as indigenous and to be recognized as such” (article 8). On the other hand, indigenous people are usually defined as “those with a social or cultural identity distinct from the dominant or mainstream society, which makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the processes of development.”
This appears to show that the big argument is not really about immigration but about the right to maintain one’s cultural and ethic identity within the “dominant mainstream”. Celts and Gauls, say, despite history and despite the standard dictionary definition of “indigenous”, are the cultural mainstream, and therefore not indigenous. Muslims in the UK and Aboriginal people in Australia are thus portrayed as being in the same boat. But consider the case where White, Western people are in the cultural minority, as in South Africa or Zimbabwe. Do they, by definition become an indigenous people? It could still be argued that they dominate economically, hence Mugabe’s defence of forcibly taking farms off White owners.
In my experience the argument then gets bogged down in arguments from historical retribution, much in the same way as many on the Left said after 9/11 that the US “had it coming”. But we are now a long way from the moral high ground. The only fair and just solution, if anyone still worries about such concepts, would seem to be to adopt the Mirror Rule, whereby one reverses all the roles of the parties involved and then examines one’s moral instincts. The obvious example is a minority White, Western community in a Muslim country: ought they to be allowed to practise all aspects of their culture and religion in peace, and be protected by the law to do so? If your automatic response is to say “No”, then the foundation for arguing the same rights in White Western countries collapses. There need to be other arguments produced, but these seem to be slow in coming.
“Celts and Gauls, say, despite history and despite the standard dictionary definition of “indigenous”, are the cultural mainstream, and therefore not indigenous.”
You should not agree to the terms of debate because they are used against other populations; whatever nobil intentions may have been in inspiring these definitions (fighting against oppression of local natives by colonialists, because there were many instances of it in the past), now through deception they are tools for imposing evil worldviews.
Regarding “the Mirror Rule”, someone I know said “if Muslims can build mosques in Europe, why Christians cannot buid churches in Saudi Arabia. Holy Islam land? Phew.” (disgusting hypocrites, I say). Of course I agree with this (i.e. , tit-for-tat, an-eye-for-an-eye; if otherwise that people does not understand to behave, what we can do ?).
Broocks, a good anecdotal observation that is in no way contrary to the philosophy and practice of multiculturalism. But it is also not a set condition. Integration does not have to mean homogeneity or that “cultural” integration is some sort of regressing to a pre-determined mean. Nor does it mean different cultures must live next to one another.
The question is why is mulitculturalism not a successful practice in Europe (if this indeed is an accurate statement). For one, I would suggest Mr. Goodhard actually conduct research than simply recite ideological “factoids” as he seems to do. Then consider the overall social mobility of a society. As you might be aware, the UK and FRance are among the LEAST fluid societies among developed countries (as is the US). Canada ranks among the most socially mobile. Hmmmm. How much does successful “integration” relate to real equity of opportunity and that such opportunities are tied to education, economics and social factors. So in countries like the UK perhaps they practiced the illusion of mobility and inclusion but the barriers remain firmly in place.
Bottom line is, Mr. Goodhart’s blanket generalization ” “—what we would today call ‘‘multiculturalism’’—could hinder them in school, and further segregate them from society. Honeyford turned out to be right” does not stand up to the rigour of empirical testing. It is a factoid that is ideologically based. And wrong!
Immigration is a consciosly and deliberately decided uprooting and re-rooting in a new culture.The reasons might range freer atmosphere,more open opportuities,well being of families in the host and native lands.The question is whther there should be assimilation that is smooth and painless or alienation that breeds mistrust,suspision and even hate.This is a process that is two way and mutually respecting.One way to achieve this is integrating the migrants with the community by housing policies that merges the migrants with the locals rather than driving them to cubby hole resulting in neighborhoods that carry names like “china town” and so forth.The mutual respect policy will result in greater understanding and respect for cultures.It is indeed impossible to restrict or limit migration.This was the very cause of human development in the last over two centuries.One must admit excesses like colonialism and wars for territorial and racial supremacy reasons.That apart the history of the world has been changing for the better and nations that accepted migrants did prosper and provided competitive environment for demonstrating excellence.I think the reality is understanding the migrant’s objectives and facilitating for the benefit of the accepting nation.Where the objectives challenge the existing culture and ethos of the host nation any attempt to hinder or harm or create chaos should be thwarted by nipping irritants in the bud.
As one who was raised in Europe during the 60’s and 70’s. I often thought the European embrace of anything and everything “Immigrant”, “Diverse” and “Multi-culti” was partially a response to the perceived flaws in the U.S., and a way for Europe to show that it could do a better job of dealing with racial minorities. A feeling of continent-wide inadequacy, inferiority, and jealousy, in effect. (Not that such a feeling was necessarily true or accurate- only that it existed).
I remember many times being told how racist America was, by people whose only source of information about America was the state-run television. Remember the program in Britain- “Wickers Way Out West”? These same people were totally blind to their own racism and prejudices.
I feel a lot of this was due to the huge difference in wealth between the US and Europe at the time. the official figures always showed how much better the Europeans had it, with their social welfare system and socialized medicine- but to anyone who lived there, it was blindingly obvious how much poorer than Americans they were- not that there weren’t many other compensations! The official figures were, quite simply, Euro-propaganda. The lifestyle portrayed in American films and television created a tremendous sense of envy among European youth. Many European youth, in fact, wanted nothing more than to immigrate to America- it was like a giant Disneyland to them.
Consider the Euro preference (allegedly) for small cars. Once Europeans could afford them, they bought the biggest cars they could buy. I mean, really- SUV’s in Britain? How bloody ridiculous! But before they could afford big cars, it soothed their egos to rabbit on about “Yank Tanks” and “American excess”…..just like their views on racial integration were designed to make them feel morally superior to those backward, racist Americans.
They bought into a fantasy, and are now waking up to a reality far different than they planned. This will not end peacefully, in my view. The legitimate concerns of the native Europeans have been pushed aside for too long. I expect and fear bloodshed will inevitably result. Why Europe did this to itself will be the subject of much debate in the future…but it’s not as if they weren’t warned. I remember reading Enoch Powell’s speech in 1968 and wondering why on earth any country would choose to import a racial problem where none had existed.
Post-modernist Europe is facing other challenges after the fall of the Berlin wall and the demise of communism. The onslaught of unreason on reason and rational in 9/11 resulted into a state of ”attentism” or ”watch-and-see” from Europeans, hence the current feeling of bewilderment, freeze, and panic in front of sometimes drole behaviour and attitude of people who have yet to let go burdening baggage from earlier centuries of Islam.
Europe had for more than three or four centuries entrenched with its destiny and future in dealing once and forever with religious conflicts and wars, it was only when the fore-fathers of philosophy and enlightenment from Kant, Descartes, Luck, Hume, dealt a big blow to unreason and irrational that Europe flourished and developed. Unfortunately, the same unreason and irrational has resurfaced again in the 20th century, not in Europe this time, in the abode of Islam. It was for sure for many observers that the winds of that unreason will reach the shores of Europe, and eventually it was true.
An easy reflection will have it that the war of religions, sects, and affiliations in Muslim and Arab world is still taking place because many Muslims, especially, Islamists are frozen in early centuries of Islam, and still don’t want to move forward. Europe had married reason and rational to religion, although many Europeans have currently chosen to marginalise religion even in their social lives which can be a strategic mistake in the future, Arab countries and the Muslim world have yet to come to that ultimate decision of espousing reason and freedom along their religious experience. The result is easily discerned we see Europe built upon the fruits of enlightenment’s heritage of Luck, Kant, Hume, Descartes.. is struggling to understand the philosophy of opponents let’s say Ibn Taimiyya or the wahabiyya movement.
The battle therefore is within 21st century Islam not with Islam itself. Many Islam-followers have experienced London, Paris, and New York styles, way of lives and values yet still haven’t succeeded to marry that experience to religious principles.
The battle to rationalise and reforme Islam is a long and wrenching, the key thing for Europeans and Muslims to win that battle is no way to roll back the heritage of enlightenment, for the people who were iconic figures behind that movement suffered a long and bloody war to resolve the religious question and wars of Europe’s dark ages. One voice that doesn’t help down this path is the guy who suggested that Europe got women out when its coffers were empty, not out of enlightenment minds, this kind of reasoning unfortunately harks back to dark ages, and many rulings in Kingdoms of zombies, and women not allowed to drive cars.
So, DD, are you saying Ake Green should have been subject to prosecution and jail for his statements? Because they transgressed a certain boundary of objectionability? Where does it stop? Come clean, please.
Mr. Caldwell’s characterization of European attitudes toward Muslim immigrant cultures as ignorant and naive might have been apt prior to 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings. But the stubborn maintenance of these attitudes, to the point of demonizing and prosecuting those who challenge them, in the face of undeniable evidence that threats are indeed emanating from these immigrant groups is willful. It must be authoritarian because it has no defensible, rational foundation.
Excellent and perceptive article. But I agree with other commentators that the prognosis about the chances of “multiculturalism” and its variants in different European countries ultimately succeeding is excessively pessimistic. According to the recent Gallup survey “Gallup Coexist Index 2009″ (see http://www.muslimwestfacts.com for the full report), covering Muslim opinion in the UK, France and Germany, Muslims in all three countries are more enthusistic about living in a multicultural community than their analogues among the general public; and generally have greater confidence in state institutions such as the government and judiciary than do the public as a whole. This seems to convey a different message from the oft-cited prediction that the “clash of civilizations” is somehow inevitable (not that I’m accusing Mr Caldwell of suggesting that!).
I agree with Ben, Francine Last and Simmons. But Barry Larking and Jerry Lastow correctly identify the collision of nationalist agendas during the 20th Century as the driver of the phenomenon of European tolerance/multiculturalism. Nationalism failed us in Britain, and it failed the French and the Germans, as well as every other European nation that sought to impose its will on others. The Victorian era post-Enlightenment values (the root cause of our colonial misadventures) that underpinned such thinking embarrassed us,and fed into a postwar guilt complex.
However, the failure of liberal tolerance and multiculturalism lies not with embracing and welcoming other cultures and attempting to somehow compensate for perceived colonial injustices, but in doing so unconditionally.
Diversity doesn’t mean accepting everything another culture has to offer, it means assimilating aspects that enhance or improve the richness of our own culture. Tolerance doesn’t mean we have to applaud every extremist’s point of view, or silence everyone who points out the Emperor’s public nudity. It means allowing open, free and fair debate, without fear of the PC thought police, and those values should be embraced by immigrants too, whatever their religion has to say on the matter.
If one holds a particular religious (or cultural) opinion that runs counter to accepted belief in one’s host country, one should lose the incompatible baggage, or leave the country. Lessons in one’s new home’s language, history and laws should be a precondition of citizenship.
Assimilation, not ‘cultural equality’, is the answer.