• multiculturalism unravels

At one time to support multiculturalism was to be politically correct

At times I have felt confused about the terms multiculturalism, liberalism and cultural relativism. What do they mean exactly and where do they fit in an analysis of progress?

A recent article by John O'Sullivan has been very helpful to me in clarifying these issues, especially with its explanation of  multiculturalism and cultural liberalism.

O'Sullivan says that:

Multiculturalism holds that all cultures are equal; liberalism is the doctrine that all human beings have equal rights ...

He situates his discussion in a recent incident in the British election campaign where George Galloway, former Labour MP and friend of Saddam Hussein, now leader of the leftist multicultural party, Respect, was threatened with murder by Muslim fundamentalists for encouraging pious Muslims to commit the "sin" of democratic voting.

Highly ironic.

O'Sullivan then goes onto generalising this extreme incident into an analysis of how the doctrine of multiculturalism is unravelling for those who have a real committment to cultural liberalism.

Multiculturalism holds that all cultures are equal; liberalism is the doctrine that all human beings have equal rights; so if a culture holds that some human beings, (e.g., women) have fewer rights than others, then liberalism has to confront that culture and to reject the multiculturalism sheltering it. On some issues liberal society can reach a modus vivendi with other cultures--for instance, by designing school uniforms that conform to Muslim views of female modesty. On really important questions such as "honour killings," however, liberal society has to impose its own values without apology, if necessary in condign ways. In practice it has been nervous of doing so and the authorities have until recently turned a blind eye to such things...

and

liberals have failed to persuade these other cultures that the liberal theory of universal human rights is an entirely secular one posing no threat to their religion. Muslims in particular persist in seeing it as an expression of Christian civilization -- which, historically, it is certainly is -- and thus tainted at best. They also trace what they see as the moral decadence of Western society -- the cultural liberalism described above -- back to this Christian heritage. They accordingly seek to protect Muslims from both cultural pollution and the political results of such liberal heresies as free speech.

Pamela Bone has said similar things repeatedly in opposing cultural relativism, see her articles on The Silence of the Feminists and Tolerance: it's a relative concept

Certainly, we should respect other cultures, but not uncritically. It would appear to me that strict support for multiculturalism has now become an untenable position for a progressive person to hold.

What to do when elements of a religion conflict with the broad values of tolerance? Firstly, keep cool and don't confuse the 'elements' with the 'whole'. Secondly, relax because Australia's legal system doesn't excuse criminal behaviour on religious grounds. And thirdly, defend the right to free expression, including religious belief and practice, of everyone in society.

 

I can't see why support for multiculturalism, whether "strict" or otherwise, "has now become an untenable position for a progressive person to hold". I found the O'Sullivan piece rather confused and certainly unpersuasive. I'm sure that in England most Muslims attend the 'moderate mosques' - only a tiny minority invade them - yet O'Sullivan builds an argument around that kind of minority behaviour.

 

The article was written about the UK for an American audience. In both countries, multiculturalism has a different meaning than in Australia. Neither the US or the UK developed an overtly national multicultural policy in the 1970s and 1980s, as Australia did. And, from my wider reading, in America especially, multiculturalism is synonymous with cultural relativism: a frame of mind, a prejudice, a theory, rather than a practical policy of the state.

 

O'Sullivan says that "Multiculturalism" is "the doctrine that all cultures are equal". In Australia, this is an accepted premise for purposes of government management of the cultural diversity within society. This diversity is mainly a product of immigration. How else can governments deal with diverse ethnic cultures other than by presuming them to be equal? O'Sullivan's logic requires that Muslims be singled out in some way.

 

The key ingredient here is one that is always overlooked by opponents of multiculturalism, and that relates to the fact that multiculturalism imposes obligations as well as grants freedom for all cultures. It's always been that way, in Australia, since the early 1970s when Al Grassby first used the term in the title of an official publication. The context for multiculturalism is the rule of law. In a bourgeois democracy like Australia, that law carries values which are essentially British. This, coupled with local conditions, is probably why multiculturalism has been so effectively embraced here.

 

A tiny minority within Muslim fundamentalism threaten to kill Members of Parliament; a tiny group of Christian fundamentalists blow up abortion clinics. Both types of behaviour are punishable in the law.

 

O'Sullivan states that "the authorities have until recently turned a blind eye to such things" as "honour killings". I find this hard to believe. An 'honour killing' is no less a murder under the law, in the UK or here.

 

I can see why there's concern about Political Correctness. It stultifies critical thinking. In my professional life, I have come across examples of what I could call "Devout Religious Multiculturalists". These are individuals who turn a blind eye to all the negativity in minority cultures, who even sometimes idelaize them, while at the same time bad-mouthing the Enlightenment tradition which did more to secure personal freedom than any religion. But these people are very much on the fringe - they have no influence over government policy and very little among the mainstream academics and bureaucrats in the field. Attack them as cultural relativists, but not multiculturalists - lest you play into the hands of those who don't like Muslims.

 

I think it's actually important and necessary for progressives to defend multiculturalism, and to defend the terminology too.

 

None of the above means that I am uncritical of aspects of other cultures. In the 1970s and 1980s, multiculturalism's main thrust in the preservation of ethnic diversity related to language and folk customs. As the number of Muslims in Australia increased in the 1990s, religion entered the scene as an issue really for the first time. Multiculturalism has meant the preservation and maintenance of traditions but these traditions change, in the homeland, and they certainly change over generations in the adopted country of residence.

 

On religion in general, as an atheist, I think all religions are crazy. That's my right, and I'll do what I can to defend it. But I'll also defend the rights of religious people to their beliefs, should they come under attack. I guess this means that, in France, I would have marched against that government's recent law against the wearing of religious garb and symbols in state schools.

 

What to do when elements of a religion conflict with the broad values of tolerance? Firstly, keep cool and don't confuse the 'elements' with the 'whole'. Secondly, relax because Australia's legal system doesn't excuse criminal behaviour on religious grounds. And thirdly, defend the right to religious belief and practice of everyone in society.

 

As for the recent moves by governments to legislate against people who say nasty things against a religion, these should be opposed for the same 'human rights' reasons that apply to the argument for religious freedom and multiculturalism. Whether Blair in the UK or Bracks in Victoria, attempts to resuscitate laws against blasphemy deny basic freedoms of thought and expression.

 

The Bracks' proposal (in effect, against blasphemy) is as much against the spirit of multiculturalism as attempts by people like John O'Sullivan to make a special case of Muslims.

 

The earliest statement of Australian government policy on multiculturalism that I could find on-line is the 1989 'National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia', which had bipartisan support.  

http://www.immi.gov.au/multicultural/_inc/publications/agenda/agenda89/whatismu.htm 

 The following are two of three 'limits on multiculturalism' from the 1989 National Agenda:

"multicultural policies require all Australians to accept the basic structures and principles of Australian society - the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, Parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language and equality of the sexes; and

multicultural policies impose obligations as well as conferring rights: the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and values".

 

The most recent government national policy was released in 2003 under the title, 'Multicultural Australia: United in diversity'. A shift in policy since the 1996 election of the John Howard government has been the dropping of reference to 'social justice' as a component of multiculturalism and its repalcement with the weaker concept of 'social equity'. This provoked protest from the earlier generation of multicultural theorists, such as Jerzy Zubrzycki.

 

Multiculturalism isn't perfect, but it's the only way to go for governments of immigrant societies.

 

Barry

 

 

 

 

 

The way I see it, "multiculturalism" is a policy based on the idea of tolerance for different cultures.  In a multicultural society people have the right to engage in their  own cultural practices and are not forced to conform to the dominant culture.  (But as Barry pointed out, this does not allow people to live outside the law ).

"Cultural relativism" on the other hand is based on the idea that we can't pass judegements upon the beliefs of others. If someone happens to believe in something then that is "right for them" and that's the end of it.  This atitude is closely related to relativism about the idea of truth  - ie to the idea that there is no such things as objective knowledge of realities independent of the knower.

I think there's a huge difference between these two outlooks and like Barry I would defend multiculturalism against critics like O'Sullivan.

The experience in Australia has been that multiculturalism reduces the tendency of immigrants from different cultures to cling together and hang on to backward cultural practices and traditions. It therefore has the effect of moving things along by breaking up cultural ghettos.   When minority groups feel oppressed and under pressure  to conform, they experience  the new society as alien  and their response is to band together to protect and nurture their identity as a separate culture.   When they don't feel this pressure, the tendency is for minorities to open themselves to new ideas and influences.

Under these circumstances, it's much harder for the older generation to put pressure on their children to remain within cultural boundaries, not to "marry out" and so on.  However  if  there is a real sense that the community is under seige it is quite easy for younger generations to feel a duty to follow along in their parent's footsteps.

O'Sullivan  comes over as a conservative  -  he's worried about the rejection of Christian tradtion,  even quotes the Pope approvingly.

The newly-elected Pope Benedict XVI, on the other hand, proclaims that Europe can resist multiculturalism and live with Islam without surrendering to it -- but only if it recovers its own Christian traditions of moral behaviour. Given that some of the fruits of Britain's cultural liberalism taste distinctly sour, secular liberals might be persuaded to examine this prospect sympathetically. They should be at least half-encouraged by the Pope's acceptance of the mutually stimulating role of religion and secular liberalism: "To this extent we must grateful to secular society and the Enlightenment. It must remain a thorn in our side, as secular society must accept the (Christian) thorn in its side."

He clearlyregards Christianity as superior to Islam.  In most of his article he draws no distinction between Islamic fundamentalism and Islam, presenting Muslims as a single group.

"...liberals have failed to persuade these other cultures that the liberal theory of universal human rights is an entirely secular one posing no threat to their religion. Muslims in particular persist in seeing it as an expression of Christian civilization -- which, historically, it is certainly is -- and thus tainted at best. They also trace what they see as the moral decadence of Western society -- the cultural liberalism described above -- back to this Christian heritage. They accordingly seek to protect Muslims from both cultural pollution and the political results of such liberal heresies as free speech."

Overall he seems to be implying  that a return to the good old days when patriotism was a "simple virtue", public life was not "aggressively secular", family life had not been "devalued" might be the way to go.  Society,  he says is  "cruder, more disordered, less gentle, and less neighborly than in the past".


Although he does have a go at political correctness and draws our attention to the irony of Geoge Galloway being attacked by Islamic fundamentalists for urging them to take part in the democratic process, his overall response to the issues is a conservative one.  

Barry York wrote:

What to do when elements of a religion conflict with the broad values of tolerance? Firstly, keep cool and don't confuse the 'elements' with the 'whole'. Secondly, relax because Australia's legal system doesn't excuse criminal behaviour on religious grounds. And thirdly, defend the right to free expression, including religious belief and practice, of everyone in society.

Well said Barry. I'm persuaded by your analysis and knowledge of multiculturalism. I was wrong.

Over the past few days, following the London bombings, I've noticed a whole spate of articles in the British and Australian Press revisiting and agonising over the meaning of multiculturalism.

Some of them have shocked me, particularly this one by John Stone (National Party) who calls for the wholesale dismantling of multicultural Australia:

Here, then, are six specific proposals for addressing that larger issue.

First, official multiculturalism policies must be abandoned outright. That does not mean we should cease receiving immigrants (albeit more selectively). It does mean all official multiculturalism's appurtenances (for example: SBS, government grants to ethnically based councils) must be abolished.

Second, we must sharply reduce, indeed virtually halt, Muslim immigrant inflow.

Third, the precious gift of Australian citizenship must be harder to obtain. The permanent residence requirement for citizenship is a derisory two years. If we value citizenship so lightly, how can we expect newcomers to do otherwise?

Fourth, citizenship should be conditional on reasonable fluency, appropriately tested, in English. If ethnic ghettos are to be avoided, newcomers must learn our language.

Fifth, citizenship applicants should also have to pass a reasonable written test of citizenship's meaning: parliamentary democracy, respect for others' rights, the rule of law and a general understanding of the Australian values to which they swear commitment.

Sixth, emphasis on English in our immigration policy should be enhanced. Today, English-language proficiency earns points towards an applicant's overall score. It should be made an absolute requirement (including, in other than exceptional cases, for our humanitarian intake).

What? If they took away SBS what would there be left to watch on TV? The bits I've marked in red I think are outrageous.

I've collected the articles I've been reading at http://del.icio.us/billKerr/multiculturalism. Obviously this issue is going to become a hotly debated one and we need to think it through. I feel a need to improve my knowledge in this area.

John Stone's views are too extreme and whacky to be taken seriously. A couple of generations ago, they would have had greater credibility but this is the twenty-first century. He's old and his ideas will die with him.

 

It's a worry that someone like Pamela Bone can start doubting multiculturalism. I think it reflects two things: (1) the issue of religion, Islam, is the current focal point for debate about multiculturalism whereas in the past it was not, and (2) the 'war on terror' and the war in Iraq are not seen to be advancing.

 

The defeatist media is largely to blame. As are commentators like Robert Manne who analyse the war in terms of 'Islamophobia'.

 

The current debate over multiculturalism probably provides an opportunity to further promote a genuinely left perspective, one that supports cultural diversity, multiculturalism and globalisation (and the use of the term "multiculturalism"), supports and defends the right to religious belief as well as to atheism, opposes laws that seek to censure opinions about religion on the grounds they may offend some people, supports atheism, secularism and scientific method as superior to religion, and which supports the overthrow of tyrannies and the modern, democratic, redevelopment of the Middle East as the surest way of undermining Islamo-fascist terrorism in the long term.

 

It's heartening that a large group of British Muslim clerics and scholars issued a fatwa against the terrorists, and that local clerics in Australia have condemned them. The tiny minority who reckon Bin Laden is a decent human being are best countered through unity with the majority of Muslims who appreciate being able to practice their religion in a secular democracy.

 

A very dis-heartening development is all the talk about cracking down on bookshops that promote radical Islamist ideas. This only plays into the hands of the minorty who, indeed, are nurtured by a sense of repression.

 

Barry

 

 

 

Gerard Henderson responds to John Stone's ravings and other matters in the Sydney Morning Herald. I'm not certain about his first dot point but on the others I think he's got it right.

If the war against terrorism takes a form similar to other conflicts where the very existence of democratic societies has been threatened, then the following consequences should be expected in Australia:

■ In the present climate, the Australian electorate will tolerate restrictions on civil liberties which would not normally apply in peacetime, despite what civil libertarians assert. This could include far greater surveillance by closed circuit TV cameras and the introduction of an identity card, if the latter proves cost efficient.

■ Voters will expect that the Prime Minister and the premiers will name and, if possible, shame any Muslim leader who makes statements which deny reality or which are capable of being interpreted as giving succour to Islamic jihadists. If Sheik Mohammed Omran continues to deny that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001 - or if Wassim Doureihi continues to state that Muslims cannot co-exist with Westerners in democratic societies - then they should expect public criticism.

■ The clear majority of moderate Muslims leaders will be expected to unequivocally condemn advocates of, or fellow travellers with, jihad. It is understandable that some Muslim leaders feel intimidated and, consequently, reluctant to take a stand in what journalist Christopher Hitchens has termed this Islamic civil war. Muslims are targets of jihadists in the West just as they are within such Muslim nations as Turkey, Egypt, Morocco and Iraq. Even so, moderate Islamic leaders will be expected to take a stance against terrorism.

■ Some citizens will overreact to the crisis. Already the former National Party senator John Stone has argued that Australia "must sharply reduce, indeed virtually halt, Muslim immigration inflow". This is a grievous insult to law-abiding Muslims which does nothing to prevent a London-style attack by young Australian citizens who have been indoctrinated into the jihadist cause. The task of government is to support the moderates in the Islamic civil war, in Australia and overseas.

■ Others will seek to point the blame at the wrong causes. Multiculturalism has worked well in Australia. It is not a factor in the rejection of Western societies (including those, like France, which are monocultural) by jihadists. Also, asylum seekers are not a problem. As former ASIO director-general Dennis Richardson pointed out during a speech in Hobart on May 8, 2002, security checks on asylum seekers entering Australia have not found any terrorists or potential terrorists. Terrorists are invariably either native-born or enter a country on visas.

I've added some new articles to the file at http://del.icio.us/billKerr/multiculturalism

The one by Mark Steyn in The Australian is fascinating for the information it presents about Mohammed Atta (9/11) but is off the planet in the way it then goes on to confuse cultural relativism with multiculturalism.

Cultural debate needs more dirt ...

In this article, Salman Rushdie argues  that the term multiculturalism is too closely aligned with cultural relativism (in the UK) and he suggests other slogans such as "multifaceted culture" and "cultural plurality".

The mélange of culture is in us all, with its irreconcilable contradictions. In our swollen, polyglot cities, we are all cultural mestizos. So it is important to make a distinction between multifaceted culture and multiculturalism. In the age of mass migration and the internet, cultural plurality is an irreversible fact; like it or dislike it, it’s where we live, and the dream of a pure monoculture is at best an unattainable, nostalgic fantasy and at worst a life-threatening menace — when ideas of purity (racial purity, religious purity, cultural purity) turn into programmes of “ethnic cleansing” or when Hindu fanatics attack the “inauthenticity” of Indian Muslim experience, or when Islamic ideologues drive young people to die in the service of “pure” faith, unadulterated by compassion or doubt. “Purity” is a slogan that leads to segregations and explosions. Let us have no more of it. A little more impurity, please; a little less cleanliness; a little more dirt. We’ll all sleep easier in our beds.

Multiculturalism, however, has all too often become mere cultural relativism, a much less defensible proposition, under cover of which much that is reactionary and oppressive — of women, for example — can be justified. The British multiculturalist idea of different cultures peacefully coexisting under the umbrella of a vaguely defined pax Britannica was seriously undermined by the July 7 bombers and the disaffected ghetto culture from which they sprang. Of the other available social models, the one-size-fits-all homogenising of “full assimilation” seems not only undesirable but unachievable, and what remains is the “core values” approach, of which the “Britishness test” is, as presently proposed, a grotesque comic parody.

However, I'm reminded of some comments from Barry earlier in this thread:

In both countries,(America, UK) multiculturalism has a different meaning than in Australia. Neither the US or the UK developed an overtly national multicultural policy in the 1970s and 1980s, as Australia did. And, from my wider reading, in America especially, multiculturalism is synonymous with cultural relativism: a frame of mind, a prejudice, a theory, rather than a practical policy of the state.

I like this comment in another blog which points out that national identity is a moving target. How would we define what it is to be Australian?

The truth is that traditional national identities and values have never been static. Nationalist imaginaries of Britishness or Canadianness are myths of convenience that have served many a political purpose. This, however, should not excuse religious or political extremism of any stripe. We agree that that has to be squelched but not by controlling immigration — the problem is home grown, not always imported, it's time we realized that — through other means. If we opt for a belief in a country whose citizens have a commitment to live up to their responsibilities under a secular, democratic system where religion and politics are clearly separated, well and good. But you can't force someone to become British any more than you can change the colour of his skin, his "descent," his views or even public perceptions and stereotypes just by saying so or legislating it. (A UK publishing exec noted that the demand for South Asian writers such as Hanif Kureishi is on the decline. Funny, I think of Kureishi as English but others obviously don't.) Identities are lived, dynamic, and participatory just as any inclusive process of nation building should be.
blowing-up-polyculturalism

Cultural pluralism is the best term, in my view, after multiculturalism. I've long argued that multiculturalism should be asserted and maintained as a concept, mainly because its opponents have been successfully in denigrating it or removing it from public discourse.

I have in mind Bob Carr who, as ALP Premier of NSW, directed public servants to drop it from official publications and replace it with the concept of citizenship. And I have in mind, PM Howard, who in 1988 gave a speech remarkably in line with the xenophobic outlook of Pauline Hanson. Later, in the 1990s, Howard claimed to have been won over to cultural diversity but he greatly reduced funding for multicultural research and his rarely uses the term.

 

The new element, for me, does indeed relate to cultural relativism, a product of post-modernist thinking. This makes it problematic - not the Cronulla riots.

 

As for the issue of national identity, for many years the advocates of multiculturalism argued that it represented the new national identity, that Australian identity was multicultural. I accepted this view, though it troubles me somewhat that it should be seen in terms of a nationalistic paradigm. In the C21st, Australia has about 40,000 Australians who permanently emigrate, and we take in about 130,000 from other countries. The really big figure (which I don't have handy) relates to temporary visitors - it's a few million, I think. And, as is well known, about a quarter of Australians were born overseas and about 40% have an ancestry elsewhere. Maybe I overdosed on nationlism when I supported it in the late 1970s through the Australian Independence Movement, but it seems very passe and boring these days. Apart from the occasional academic, people don't really care about what our national identity is - and isn't that a good thing? We just bumble along, with broad acceptance that in our neighbourhoods, workplaces, schools, retirement villages, etc., many of us are from somewhere else and the rrest of us have parents or grandparents who were from somewhere else, or we're married to people from some other place. Or we just have friends in that category.

 

The problem arises when organised racists manipulate people's fears of the future through appeal to the symbols of yesteryear when there was a stronger sense of Australian nationalism. The old symbols, including the flag, are waved pasionately, as they were at Cronulla.

 

While I see sense in arguing that Australian identity is based on multiculturalism, I also freely acknowledge that multiculturalism weakens Australian nationalism. Which isn't a bad thing.

 

Issues relating to 'Leb gangs' are more to do with a tiny group of Australians of 'Middle Eastern appearance' behaving badly rather than any fundamental failing in multiculturalism. I think a response to the racist 'Patriotic' groups should be to loudly reassert 'multiculturalism' rather than to worry too much that it might be confused with cultural relativism. The "Kefa" leaflet showed the way to avoid that!

 

Barry

 

Fuzzy terminology used as a banner on both sides of an issue is generally a sign that underlying issue is misunderstood.

Goal is assimilation - the formation of an amalgam from the best of national cultures discarding the dross. Method is eliminating national oppression which is the main force keeping nationalities apart. Cultural relativism and accompanying political correctness aims at retaining the dross and discarding the best.

Checkout Lenin's polemics with Bundists and Austrian social-democrats. Also Stalin on Linguistics (and of course on National Question but Linguistics was squarely aimed at political correctness etc).

BTW "Seven Periods With Mr Gormsby" on ABC at 10pm tonite - Wednesday 2005-12-28 - was fun. Today's Age had review on TV guide Summerage p20 from pseudo left about how "outrageously offensive" the "vicious right wing agenda" of this Kiwi series was:

Liberals are presented not just as wishy-washy and ineffectual but as sly, immoral and self-interested.

Naturally I couldn't miss that! Would have preferred a left anti-PC hero rather than the Rumpolian crusty old Kiplinesque Tory radical. But they nailed the pseudos rather nicely.

Don't miss future episodes.

I don't think the term 'assimilation' is the best one for a description of the goal of an amalgam of the best and the discarding of the dross. In my work in the 'multicultural industry' in the 1990s, assimilation was frowned upon because it implied the loss of identity of the minor groups and their absorption into the major group. The dictionary definition includes the idea of absorption as well as "to cause to resemble, to make like". Assimilationism was policy at a time when mass immigration from non-British sources led governments and bureaucrats to seek to pressure the newcomers from non-English-speaking backgrounds to drop their cultures and become like 'us' (Anglo-Australia). This was not entirely negative - for example, it resulted in English-language classes - but the downside was a denial of the good qualities to be found within diverse cultures.

 

I think a preferable term is 'integration', which is about bringing together component parts into a whole. In this way, the best of the different cultures can indeed be encouraged.

 

I see integration as compatable with multiculturalism but assimilationism isn't.

 

I have to admit to having no recollection of ever reading Lenin's polemics with the Bundists and have forgotten Stalin on the national question. The world of the C21st is far more integrated than it was back then and I wonder whether those who have read the works regard them as of continuing relevance and, if so, why.

 

Regards and good wishes for 2006,

 

Barry

 

The terms integration and assimilation are generally used in the way you explain. I recall this being explained to me when as a naive school student I expressed support for assimilation of aboriginals in connection with elimination of racism -  at a time when I was secretary of Youth Against Apartheid and spending my vacation as a full time organizer for the campaign to stop capital punishment, with slogan "Hang Bolte", (the Premier of the State of Victoria at the time of Australia's last hanging, of an escaped prisoner called Ryan).


I was told that was a terrible thing to say since anyone progressive was supposed to understand that the old policies aimed at "breeding out" Aboriginality were assimilationist whereas the new enlightened policies were integrationist.


But my choice of the term "assimilation"  rather than "integration" is deliberate.


Assimilation does not mean forced assimilation. Forced assimilation is national oppression which does not lead to assimilation ( ie the formation of an amalgam)  at all, but instead deepens differences between nationalities or other ethnic and communal groups.


Integration is indeed distinct from assimilation in emphasizing that the goal is bringing component parts into a harmonious whole while retaining their separate identities as component parts rather than absorbing the component parts into a new amalgam in which they no longer retain their separate identities as component parts.


 Lenin's polemic against the Bundists (and cultural autonomy policies of Austrian social-democrats) are especially relevant as the aim of his opponents was integration rather than assimilation with similar arguments and consequences to the "politically correct" version of multi-culturalism today.


 Lenin argued that complete abolition of national oppression including rigorous enforcement of the right to use any language etc with no "official language" was essential.


However the purpose of marxists opposing national oppression was not to preserve national minorities as distinct components retaining their own identities but precisely in order to speed the "melting pot" process by which they are absorbed into a new amalgam.


This opposition to "forced assimilation" and support for rights to complete freedom of language and culture corresponds to the progressive version of multi-culturalism today.


Stalin on the National Question emphasized that support for the right to self-determination of nations was aimed precisely at the withering away of nations rather than their preservation. Stalin on Linguistics is less directly relevant (except in relation to the currently visible emergence of English as a common world language) but its rebuttal of the "politically correct" rang a bell with me in this connection.


Since the same term, "multi-culturalism" is used both for a "politically correct" trend corresponding to integration and a progressive trend corresponding to assimilation by opposing national oppression I think that term should be avoided and the correctly counterposed terms integration and assimilation should be used for the two different tendencies currently confused under the one term.


Major problem is that most of the advocates of multi-culturalism for the purpose of "melting point" assimilation do not explicitly acknowledge that this is either the obvious consequence or the aim of their progressive policy. They simply reject both the "politically correct" artificial preservation of national differences and the bigoted enforcement of conformity to "one nation" while claiming and often believing that they are integrationists rather than assimilationists.


But the simple reality is that when you take away national oppression the natural tendency of different groups living in the same territory and working in the same economy is to gradually form an amalgam.So even if progressive multiculturalists think their aim is integration with preservation of distinct components (which many do believe),  support for progressive policies in fact results in a blending that amounts to assimilation.


The various cultures and traditions do remain features of separate components but become blended into new attributes of the new amalgam whether that was intended or not.


The decisive process is "marrying out" in which it becomes impossible for children of mixed couples to be identified with any particular sub-component rather than with the amalgam as a whole.


Speaking a common languages (whether as a first or second language), working in the same workplaces, attending the same schools and facing the same problems inevitably mixes what were previously separate communities into an amalgam.


Nationalists and reactionaries in the majority communities often slow this down, by forcing minorities to band together in defence against national oppression.


Nationalists and reactionaries in minority communities often slow this down by trying to enforce strict policies against marrying out and claiming that their culture will be "lost" if "absorbed" into the mainstream.


But an amalgam is not a transmutation of elements. It is the formation of something new in which the components no longer retain their separate identities but the new amalgam has different qualities that are not the same as, and are intended to be superior to any one of the components.


 The classic example is the amalgamation of jewish culture into the American "Judeo-Christian" culture in which yiddish culture survives far more as part of general American culture than it could have as a separate ghettoized jewry.


Not only zionists who wanted jews to emigrate to form a separate nation, but also bundists who wanted to preserve yiddish as the language of the jews, were opposed to this, as of course were the anti-semites who favoured segregation and oppression.


 Australia is very much a "melting pot" nation like the United States. The emergence of a distinct Australian nation as opposed to the previous British imperial national identitity is directly connected with large scale immigration of non-British elements and their absorption into a now non-British, uniquely Australian amalgam.


The contrast between assimilationist and integrationist policies (often flying under false flags or under the same flag of "multi-culturalism") is particularly a live issue here with respect to Aboriginal issues.


Integrationist policies have resulted in marginalization of Aborigines including at worst, efforts to preserve them in cultural museums.


People like Noel Pearson are in fact advocating assimilationist policies whether they say so or not (and are quite explicit in denouncing the catastrophic effects of the more "enlightened" integrationist policies that have prevailed for the past few decades.


"Victim culture" for black America corresponds to integration. Rejection of it is denounced as "right wing" (and often is when imposed by whites) but actually represents progressive assimilationism when put forward by blacks as their culture, including traditions in music (jazz, rap etc), dress and language become part of the mainstream.


Your "good wishes for 2006" is suspiciously assimilationist. Whats wrong with the traditional "Happy Hannukah and " Merry Chairman Mao's Birthday"?