Heathrow: Multiculturalism Fails
The recent thwarting of a would be plot to blow airplanes out the sky that were departing out of London’s Heathrow Airport is once again a testament of the United States’ efforts in combating terrorists. Yes the British authorities are certainly due a loud thank you but the big U.S. media machine has yet to say “Gee maybe the SWIFT program and homeland security are really combating terrorists and would be terrorists”. No the big media machine has continually referred back to the United Kingdom’s past history in combating the IRA. This certainly exposed the UK and forced them to deal with terrorists, allowing them to gain valuable insight. However the US big media machine will never do an about face, eat crow and admit their criticism against President Bush is poorly founded. No they maintain their stance against Bush following the President’s comments where he described the terrorists as Islamic fascists. Predictably the Muslims in America are chiming in with the critics, citing Benito Mussolini as a fascist and maintaining that the phrase was in poor taste.
A fascist or fascism is defined as a practitioner or practice whereby the government is the central authority, dominating the economy and society led by a dictator. Well the last your author checked Osama bin Laden and others of the same ilk wish to dominate the world or at least Western Society and are Islamic. So what’s the problem with stating the obvious?
This entry is not to restate the obvious or criticize the pundits. This entry is to explain the failures of multiculturalism. The would-be terrorists of London were not immigrants but rather homegrown. This was the same case in early June 2006 when Canadian citizens belonging to Toronto’s Muslim community alleged to have plotted a series of terrorist attacks in Southern Ontario were arrested. The March 2004 Madrid train bombing was carried out by terrorist cells living within the city. Later that year, in July, the London subway system was rocked by a series of bombings. The bombers were found to be husbands and sons, living and working outside of London. They were not shuttled in during the dark of night from a Mid East country.
Multiculturalism is defined as the following: a policy that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. In this case Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and the US were the receiving or hosting nations. In each violent strike the perpetrators were unable or refused to assimilate with society. The host nations had welcomed them, educated many of them and allowed them access to their society’s resources.
In 1957 multiculturalism popped up in Switzerland, however by the mid 1960s Canada was embracing the idea in droves. Soon it became commonplace in Australia and Europe, particularly in France, The Netherlands, Great Britain and Scandinavian countries.
In America there was the Melting Pot Theory, which can be defined as immigrants and the existing citizenry mixed together with little state intervention. This worked well, although with a bumpy road to travel, beginning in the late 1800s-early 1900s. However because of racial or ethnic prejudices this idea is thought to have been a failure by conventional thinkers. Note-The Melting Pot theory did not fail, mankind and his prejudices intersected its progression. Later the press dubbed Black leadership-defined as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan-would gravitate towards the idea of multiculturalism. The multiculturalism theory certainly impacted the political parties and they too adjusted their policies to address their practicing constituents. What has become apparent is that multiculturalism bred groups defined by culture ties and usually congregating in what would become known as ghettos. In other words there was no reason to venture out and there was no need to advance on the socio-economic scale. As long as your surrounding area was ‘just like home’, with street signs in your native language and your neighbor favoring your features, then why bother? As long as the infrastructure was to your advantage, this often seen in social programs and assistance, why would it be worth your while to assimilate? In fact divisions among groups of people are often ignored by these same supporters, which in its purest essence contradict the same goals of Dr. Martin Luther King and his vision of mankind embracing one another. Multiculturalism, as it has become known today with its practice, effectively turns out the light on King’s “Dream”.
In 1971 Canada adopted multiculturalism with their government body known as the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. This was in response to French speaking province of Quebec and their demands to be well… different. What occurred was we stay on our side and you stay on yours but give us our federal monies at the same time. This led to idea of Quebec breaking away to form a separate country and only in 1995 was the issue settled with the famous referendum. At the time of one of the most outspoken critics of multiculturalism was Canadian Progressive Conservative Party leader and one time Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. To suggest Diefenbaker was a proud Canadian is an understatement, he feared and rightfully so a ‘hyphenated’ Canada. In The States we are not free of such descriptive as we suffer from this same popular cultural tagging. This is when African-American, Gay-American, Muslim-American, etc. become the norm in describing individuals. When did Black not become beautiful or the gay population who in the past have been rabid about crying that their sexuality does not differentiate them from society, suddenly embrace their difference? Often times this hyphenation to ad nauseam ooze of individuals desiring some kind of a lineage to a culture they know little about. They suffer from the identity factor and feel lost, much of this by their own perception and unwilling to embrace society. Oh they may read books on a country’s particular history or actually visit this place for a holiday, but really they know next to nothing about the inner workings of that country’s society. They do not have a lifetime experience living in that country nor could possibly fully appreciate that society’s history. I cannot begin to relate to a body of cultural history with my English and Scottish roots, despite several trips to both countries. How could I expect to be able to relate to an area where my ancestors vacated some 150 years ago? I cannot and neither can the individuals who practice such silliness with a noticeable degree of fervor.
In America we have the answer to multiculturalism and it has been under our nose this entire time. The Bill of Rights, a simple but ingenious document, protects one’s right to assemble and practice whatever religion to their heart’s content. It guarantees certain inalienable rights. Your author can only wonder whether these particular countries or regions, which are deemed important for those who tag them in their own description of themselves, have such a document. Your author must also ask himself why the supporters of multiculturalism with their hyphenated descriptions leave their country of origin. An even more perplexing notion is why do the citizenry of a particular country-in this case United States, Canada or any of the several European countries previously mentioned-stay and choose not to relocate to Africa, Mexico or a country that is dominated by a particular religion? Of course before these individuals can answer these questions they would label your author a bigot.
The aborted terrorist attempt originating in London’s Heathrow Airport along with the others previously cited had no direct ties to Osama bin Laden. It would be a safe assumption to state these violent figures were ‘inspired’ by him and his al Qaeda group. This should be a key component in tailoring legislation here in The States but the Democrat Party has decided to use the ‘get bin Laden’ chant as a backdrop to their attempts to regain a majority in Congress. In a direct contradiction with this battle cry they have also embraced far leftist thinking or idealism. The far left can be described as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and the supporters of MoveOn.org. This group’s running theme is to stop the Iraq war. What if the Iraq War did conclude-would terrorist strikes or attempts as recently witnessed in London cease as well? Not likely. So are we committed to getting bin Laden, Islamic terrorism in general or do we want to end all wars? We can’t have it all.
Following the deployment of Allied Forces in Afghanistan and later with Iraq, former Florida Democrat Senator Bob Graham began criticizing Bush’s foreign policy as it relates to the war on terror during a television appearance. Graham, who did not seek reelection in 2004 because it was very clear to many he would not win despite being reelected in two previous senatorial races and having never lost a campaign, lambasted Bush and referred to bin- Laden as ‘Osama-Been-Forgotten’.
What Graham and many of his colleagues failed to recognize is that bin-Laden was merely a face in a much larger-scale movement of violence and chaos. As with many conventional thinkers, Graham and others were stuck on World War II where geographic boundaries and leaders with faces were clearly defined, failing to see the macro picture. In each of the terrorist attacks described, along with others as they relate to the Islamist jihad movement, none of the participants were leaders of a large military, held an elected position, commanded influence over a political party and for the most part none had previous military training. They were disenfranchised individuals, many living in ghettos or within the confines of their neighborhood. More importantly they were the end result of multiculturalism.
Whether they are misled and absorbed in al Qaeda propaganda or tagging themselves to denote a particular cultural lineage, sexuality or religion; they are lost. Your author is reminded of The Ramones. The Godfathers of New York punk music released an album entitled Animal Boy in 1986. Within the body of work is a song entitled Looking For Something To Believe In. Unfortunately the politicians, pundits, critics and talking heads aren’t listening to the same tune.
A fascist or fascism is defined as a practitioner or practice whereby the government is the central authority, dominating the economy and society led by a dictator. Well the last your author checked Osama bin Laden and others of the same ilk wish to dominate the world or at least Western Society and are Islamic. So what’s the problem with stating the obvious?
This entry is not to restate the obvious or criticize the pundits. This entry is to explain the failures of multiculturalism. The would-be terrorists of London were not immigrants but rather homegrown. This was the same case in early June 2006 when Canadian citizens belonging to Toronto’s Muslim community alleged to have plotted a series of terrorist attacks in Southern Ontario were arrested. The March 2004 Madrid train bombing was carried out by terrorist cells living within the city. Later that year, in July, the London subway system was rocked by a series of bombings. The bombers were found to be husbands and sons, living and working outside of London. They were not shuttled in during the dark of night from a Mid East country.
Multiculturalism is defined as the following: a policy that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. In this case Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and the US were the receiving or hosting nations. In each violent strike the perpetrators were unable or refused to assimilate with society. The host nations had welcomed them, educated many of them and allowed them access to their society’s resources.
In 1957 multiculturalism popped up in Switzerland, however by the mid 1960s Canada was embracing the idea in droves. Soon it became commonplace in Australia and Europe, particularly in France, The Netherlands, Great Britain and Scandinavian countries.
In America there was the Melting Pot Theory, which can be defined as immigrants and the existing citizenry mixed together with little state intervention. This worked well, although with a bumpy road to travel, beginning in the late 1800s-early 1900s. However because of racial or ethnic prejudices this idea is thought to have been a failure by conventional thinkers. Note-The Melting Pot theory did not fail, mankind and his prejudices intersected its progression. Later the press dubbed Black leadership-defined as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan-would gravitate towards the idea of multiculturalism. The multiculturalism theory certainly impacted the political parties and they too adjusted their policies to address their practicing constituents. What has become apparent is that multiculturalism bred groups defined by culture ties and usually congregating in what would become known as ghettos. In other words there was no reason to venture out and there was no need to advance on the socio-economic scale. As long as your surrounding area was ‘just like home’, with street signs in your native language and your neighbor favoring your features, then why bother? As long as the infrastructure was to your advantage, this often seen in social programs and assistance, why would it be worth your while to assimilate? In fact divisions among groups of people are often ignored by these same supporters, which in its purest essence contradict the same goals of Dr. Martin Luther King and his vision of mankind embracing one another. Multiculturalism, as it has become known today with its practice, effectively turns out the light on King’s “Dream”.
In 1971 Canada adopted multiculturalism with their government body known as the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. This was in response to French speaking province of Quebec and their demands to be well… different. What occurred was we stay on our side and you stay on yours but give us our federal monies at the same time. This led to idea of Quebec breaking away to form a separate country and only in 1995 was the issue settled with the famous referendum. At the time of one of the most outspoken critics of multiculturalism was Canadian Progressive Conservative Party leader and one time Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. To suggest Diefenbaker was a proud Canadian is an understatement, he feared and rightfully so a ‘hyphenated’ Canada. In The States we are not free of such descriptive as we suffer from this same popular cultural tagging. This is when African-American, Gay-American, Muslim-American, etc. become the norm in describing individuals. When did Black not become beautiful or the gay population who in the past have been rabid about crying that their sexuality does not differentiate them from society, suddenly embrace their difference? Often times this hyphenation to ad nauseam ooze of individuals desiring some kind of a lineage to a culture they know little about. They suffer from the identity factor and feel lost, much of this by their own perception and unwilling to embrace society. Oh they may read books on a country’s particular history or actually visit this place for a holiday, but really they know next to nothing about the inner workings of that country’s society. They do not have a lifetime experience living in that country nor could possibly fully appreciate that society’s history. I cannot begin to relate to a body of cultural history with my English and Scottish roots, despite several trips to both countries. How could I expect to be able to relate to an area where my ancestors vacated some 150 years ago? I cannot and neither can the individuals who practice such silliness with a noticeable degree of fervor.
In America we have the answer to multiculturalism and it has been under our nose this entire time. The Bill of Rights, a simple but ingenious document, protects one’s right to assemble and practice whatever religion to their heart’s content. It guarantees certain inalienable rights. Your author can only wonder whether these particular countries or regions, which are deemed important for those who tag them in their own description of themselves, have such a document. Your author must also ask himself why the supporters of multiculturalism with their hyphenated descriptions leave their country of origin. An even more perplexing notion is why do the citizenry of a particular country-in this case United States, Canada or any of the several European countries previously mentioned-stay and choose not to relocate to Africa, Mexico or a country that is dominated by a particular religion? Of course before these individuals can answer these questions they would label your author a bigot.
The aborted terrorist attempt originating in London’s Heathrow Airport along with the others previously cited had no direct ties to Osama bin Laden. It would be a safe assumption to state these violent figures were ‘inspired’ by him and his al Qaeda group. This should be a key component in tailoring legislation here in The States but the Democrat Party has decided to use the ‘get bin Laden’ chant as a backdrop to their attempts to regain a majority in Congress. In a direct contradiction with this battle cry they have also embraced far leftist thinking or idealism. The far left can be described as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and the supporters of MoveOn.org. This group’s running theme is to stop the Iraq war. What if the Iraq War did conclude-would terrorist strikes or attempts as recently witnessed in London cease as well? Not likely. So are we committed to getting bin Laden, Islamic terrorism in general or do we want to end all wars? We can’t have it all.
Following the deployment of Allied Forces in Afghanistan and later with Iraq, former Florida Democrat Senator Bob Graham began criticizing Bush’s foreign policy as it relates to the war on terror during a television appearance. Graham, who did not seek reelection in 2004 because it was very clear to many he would not win despite being reelected in two previous senatorial races and having never lost a campaign, lambasted Bush and referred to bin- Laden as ‘Osama-Been-Forgotten’.
What Graham and many of his colleagues failed to recognize is that bin-Laden was merely a face in a much larger-scale movement of violence and chaos. As with many conventional thinkers, Graham and others were stuck on World War II where geographic boundaries and leaders with faces were clearly defined, failing to see the macro picture. In each of the terrorist attacks described, along with others as they relate to the Islamist jihad movement, none of the participants were leaders of a large military, held an elected position, commanded influence over a political party and for the most part none had previous military training. They were disenfranchised individuals, many living in ghettos or within the confines of their neighborhood. More importantly they were the end result of multiculturalism.
Whether they are misled and absorbed in al Qaeda propaganda or tagging themselves to denote a particular cultural lineage, sexuality or religion; they are lost. Your author is reminded of The Ramones. The Godfathers of New York punk music released an album entitled Animal Boy in 1986. Within the body of work is a song entitled Looking For Something To Believe In. Unfortunately the politicians, pundits, critics and talking heads aren’t listening to the same tune.
posted by The Infinite Speculator @ 9:16 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home