Sunday, March 17, 2013

The Multicultural Caste System

Even before there were self-help books human beings wanted to improve themselves. They did it by imitating those who were more successful. When their neighbors did better than they did, they tried to do as their neighbors did.

The reasoning is deceptively simple. If their team keeps beating your team and if you notice that their team has a different training regimen you are likely to change the way your players train. If your team is losing you will normally try to improve performance by adopting the cultural habits that have produced success. 

Of course, some contrary souls do not care who wins or loses. They might be losing but they will see value in losing. Finding some saving virtue in being beaten they will refuse to change their ways. Their culture might be consigning them to ignominious defeat, but, it's easier to keep losing than to change.

Or else, they might say that they are too good to win or that they do not believe in a culture of competition. They might be losing out in the rat race but they are wringing more enjoyment out of life.

Today, people who find virtue is losing are called multiculturalists. They hold their belief to be a dogmatic truth. You can hear it being preached every other Sunday at the Church of the Liberal Pieties.

Thomas Sowell defines the multicultural dogma:

Multiculturalism is a tempting quick fix for groups that lag; it simply pronounces their cultures to be equal with others, or “equally valid,” in some vague and lofty sense. Cultural features are just different, not better or worse, according to this dogma.

And yet, Sowell continues, failing to imitate better and more successful cultures leaves you in the dust. Why? Because, no human culture has all the answers. If you do not tap into the collective wisdom, and especially the cultures that have been the most successful, you are setting yourself up for permanent failure:

Yet the borrowing of particular features from other cultures — such as replacing Roman numerals with Arabic numerals, even in Western cultures that derived from Rome — implies that some features are not simply different but better. Some of the most advanced cultures in history have borrowed from other cultures, because no given collection of human beings has created the best answers to all the questions of life.

Nevertheless, since multiculturalists see all cultures as equal or “equally valid,” they see no justification for schools to insist that black children learn standard English, for example. Instead, each group is encouraged to cling to its own culture and to take pride in its own past glories, real or imaginary.

In other words, members of minority groups that lag educationally, economically, or otherwise are to continue to behave in the future as they have in the past — and, if they do not get the same outcomes as others, it is society’s fault. That is the bottom-line message of multiculturalism.

But then, Sowell continues, multiculturalism in practice does not merely hold back minorities. It turns them into a social caste:

Multiculturalism, like the caste system, paints people into the corner where they happened to have been born. But at least the caste system does not claim to benefit those at the bottom.

Multiculturalism not only serves the ego interests of intellectuals, it serves the political interests of elected officials, who have every incentive to promote a sense of victimhood, and even paranoia, among groups whose votes they want in exchange for both material and psychic support.

The multicultural vision of the world also serves the interests of those in the media who thrive on moral melodramas, as well as serving the interests of whole departments of ethnic “studies” in academia and a whole industry of “diversity” consultants, community organizers, and other miscellaneous race hustlers.

The biggest losers in all this are those members of racial minorities who allow themselves to be led into the blind alley of resentment and rage even when there are broad avenues of opportunity available. And we all lose when society is polarized.

It is important to underscore that multiculturalism foments resentment and rage. If you believe that your team is just as good as the other team and you keep losing, you will start thinking that the other team is cheating, that the game is rigged and that you are a victim, not a competitor.

You might come to believe that the victors need to be punished and that they should be forced to share the spoils of victory with your team. After all, ever culture is just as good as every other culture.  It's called social justice and redistributionism.

How much has multiculturalism infiltrated the American mind? Consider this: when Amy Chua, the Tiger Mom wrote a book explaining how she had brought up her children, American parents rose up to protest.

They did not ask why children who were brought up according to traditional Confucian methods were doing so well in school. They expressed no interest in becoming Tiger Moms themselves.

Not at all. First, they denounced the Tiger Mom for being an abusive mother. Second, they denounced her children for being uptight. Third, they declared that even if their children did not excel in math or music or even in perseverance, they were leading the world in having fun.

But, this reason is not limited to American multiculturalists. Take another hot button example.

There is one great success story in the Middle East. There is one economic, social and political success in that turmoil-filled region. Of course, the state is Israel.

Now, you would think that Israel would be a beacon for its neighbors, showing them the way to a more prosperous future. But, Israel’s neighbors do not see things that way.

They believe that their culture is just as good as Israeli culture and that if Israelis have succeeded where Arabs have failed, it can only mean that Israelis cheat or that they have colluded with the United States to rig the game.

When losing cultures feel resentment and rage they set themselves the task of destroying or deconstructing what winning cultures have built. 

If losing cultures emulate their betters they can end up as winners. That makes it a win/win game.

When they believe that someone else’s success has come at their expense, they see the world as a zero-sum game.

When they are true-believing multiculturalists they decide that the best way to rectify the situation is to create a lose/lose game.


Anonymous said...

Excellent!! Keep thinking this way and Republicans will NEVER get back into power--that is to say, they will have failed to emulate the successful party, Democrats, and will remain forever losers!

Anonymous said...

I have long believed that J.J. Rosseau is an unacknowledged monster of history. It's not All him. But his fanciful fantasies continue to wreak incalculable harm in the West and and its Academia.

E.g., Napoleon Chagnon. Edmund O. Wilson. Many others. Ideas have Consequences. Bad ones are poison. Sorry to be dramatic. -- Rich Lara

Anonymous said...

Definition of social darwinism from an online dictionary:

: an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically: a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence.

Sam L. said...

The libs like multi-culturalism because it is a near-perfect example of divide-and-conquer.5304

J.R. said...

Multiculturalism, although it may begin with the best intentions, is a recipe for three things: victimhood, affirmative action, and a loss of cultural identity. This is not a good platform prosperity. This should be more a matter of savoir-faire, not a socio-political priority.

epoche said...

I made a short story about multiculturalism in america stuart. It is called the United States of Disparate Impact:

I tried to pay my employees in gold but that was prohibited.

I wanted to get a loan but the government said they didnt have any money because they had already given out too many bad loans to historically disadvantaged groups.

I made more than the median income but I was not able to keep all that much because I live in the same house with the woman I sleep with and live as a family with our children together.

I was going to help a woman and train her at my business because I thought she needed help but the AAUW said I have to pay her equal pay for equal work. I knew she wouldnt be able to pay her what the AAUW thought was equal right away at least until she was proficient but the AAUW and I couldnt agree on the definition of equal work so I didnt hire her.

I was too costly to give my employees health insurance because of government mandates so I didnt do it.

I ended up losing my business to my competitors because the government bailed them out and not me.
My wife left me and I lost my life savings paying child support despite the fact that she cheated on me. I had to move back in with my parents.

I met a young women on public transportation. I like dating her despite the fact that she had 3 kids by 3 different men before the age of 21. I think I am going to stay with her until she gets her 9k earned income credit check in February. I dont know if our relationship will last much longer than that, but her mom might be able to get me a job in the Obama Administration investigating companies that use IQ tests improperly. If they are caught they are subject to fines that go towards subsidizing bad loans for historically disadvantaged groups.

Anonymous said...

"Victimhood," as J.R. suggests, is sufficient. It is the locus of all multicultural nonsense.


Anonymous said...

To Anonymous@7:45 AM:

If you are suggesting that "power," as the 13th word of your comment, is the reason for your position, might I offer that you are a buffoon, sir....

We must have a unifying culture, sir, lest we cease to be an American people. You know this, sir, which is why I fail to understand your irrational exuberance....

If we cease to have a common culture, we cease to be a nation. We can have sub-cultures, which are ceremonially acceptable, but we cannot survive as a nation if we don't have a common platform. We just can't. Sorry.


Anonymous said...

... And by your comment you decline the idea that we require an accepted cultural platform, and that all cultures are equally acceptable, I am vexed. I am not only confused, I would say that, if this be the case, that you are a certifiable idiot, sir, and suggest you offer your comments on anther blog... this one is not suitable f you. You'll be savaged. It will be most unfortunate. And sad. Please don't come back. Thank you. Ta. And Happy Saint Patrick's Day, sir... as though you care.


Anonymous said...

Sorry for the wacky redundancy. Cheers -Tip

Anonymous said...

"If losing cultures emulate their betters they can end up as winners."

I am merely applying this argument to Democrats and Republicans. If Republicans emulate and imitate their betters, that is, the winning Democrats, they might end up as winners themselves.

Well, if that's the case, then Republicans would do well to start imitating a "Left" stance on multi-culturalism. If you persist in arguments like this, you will fall into your own logic and continue to lose. Some of your party have begun to see that, but thankfully for everyone else, most Republicans are so tone-deaf they refuse to change. Oh wait a minute, isn't that just like one of these whining minority cultures?

You will become bitter, marginalized, and complain that the system is "rigged," which is, in fact, a constant whine of this blog.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

On occasion I try to present ideas in clearly so that everyone will be able to understand them. In this case, the eminently clear thinker Thomas Sowell did it for me, so I echoed his thoughts.

Unfortunately, some people persist in muddying the waters by introducing specious analogies, so, allow me.

A minimum of thought would have told you that Republicans have run candidates who have won and candidates who have lost. Many of them today are thinking that they ought to emulate the Democrats in order to win, but others are noticing that they would do well to follow the example of winning Republicans... in statewide elections, in Congressional elections, etc.

Obviously, choosing what to emulate or whether to emulate is complicated... far more complicated than a blog post. If your neighbor wins by cheating you would naturally not emulate his practice. If you neighbor wins and also drinks Rolling Rock you would not imagine that by drinking RR you would enhance your chances of success. If you had previously done better than your neighbor but had changed your M.O. you might want to return to your old ways.

Sometimes life it complex. Often, one does better to think before shooting off one's mouth.

Anonymous said...

The red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) political maps tell the story of "winners" and "losers":

The House of Representatives can be won by Republicans even if the populated cities give Democrats the relative advantage in national elections.

The problem with Social Darwinism is that human beings can reason over time - the "winners" flourish for a time and then perish as "losers." Every living thing is, by definition, "fit for life" for the time-being, and "unfit for life" when it perishes.

Anonymous said...

It's not a specious argument at all. The Republican Party is in disarray. Aside from "winning" representation here and there, it is out of favor and out of power--as you yourself have argued in posts that it is on the edge of extinction.

In a general sense, I don't see why you can't help your party by applying the same basic advice you have just advocated to those other whiney groups: emulate your betters. That is not a "specious analogy".

I didn't say mindlessly adopt EVERYTHING about the Democrats. I was speaking about their stance on multi-culturalism vs. yours.

Additionally, now that you are backtracking and "clarifying" your remarks, it would seem that you are the one shooting your mouth off without thinking. The mooment your own logic comes back to bite you in the ass, you have to find a way to get out it.

J.R. said...

I believe the logic being used was "it's complicated." - hard to to disagree with that logic.

Besides, stating that a party is "winners" simply because of their stance on multi-culturalism is narrow and very debatable. Did BO get re-elected on racial issues alone? Hardly so, so let's zoom out.

The Republican party is NOT in disarray, they simply need to connect their ideas to the people better. Perhaps that is the winning strategy, not "whining strategy."

Stuart Schneiderman said...

Personally, I think that the party needs a leader.

But I also think that the country will have to figure out how bad the BHO policies are before it starts looking to the Reps for leadership.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...


The distribution of local and national elections would suggest that people prefer (or trust) Republicans to handle tactical issues and Democrats to handle strategic issues.

There is also another point to consider. The Left's ideology is corporatist by its nature. The Right's ideology is entrepreneurial or pioneering.

Consider a physical analogy. Each individual possesses a momentum. As individuals converge to an ever closer proximity, there is an emergent inertia which constrains the motion of the individual. The outcome with respect to governance, is a more centralized, typically totalitarian, mediating power (e.g. government).

Anyway, there are different interpretations or models of this phenomenon, but it is historically and physically an inevitable conclusion. Its cause is a world where resources, both natural and human, are finitely accessible and available.

The loss of liberty is accelerated by introduction and propagation of dysfunctional behaviors motivated by dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification, along with deviant behaviors which have general, but limited implications for a population.

The inevitable conclusion of civilization... the paradox of civilization, is that it facilitates dysfunctional convergence through dissociation of risk. Another issue with civilization is that while it dampens kinetic energy, it permits potential energy to accumulate (i.e. restless natives).

I think the physical model actually represents humanity and its enterprises quite well. For example, our consciousness (or freewill) can be modeled as an uncertainty, which is chaotic or bounded and exhibiting a probabilistic intermediate behavior.