More on the knotty question of assimilation
Yesterday I offered some thoughts on immigration and assimilation.
I always try my best to make myself clear. But as is often the case, some commenters seemed to think I was saying something I was not (see the comments section of yesterday’s post if you don’t know what I’m referring to). But I’ve become resigned to this, because–as Gerard Van der Leun of American Digest quotes Karl Popper as saying, “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”
Indeed. And it’s especially true if people are determined to set up strawman arguments in order to make a certain point they want to make, whatever I may be saying. But here’s my attempt at clarification of the admittedly complex issue of assimilation, nonetheless.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I celebrate cultural diversity. You can see that if you actually read my previous post carefully. Ethnic food? Love it. I not only have no desire to take away the cous cous and the kim chee and the baba ganoush and the chow fun and the coriander and the curry, I revel in them.
So, celebrate your holidays and dress up in national costume at times, more power to you. Continue to speak your ancestral tongue; I wish I knew more of mine. But don’t let that stop you from integrating the values and customs of your new country, the US, into your lives in a deep and meaningful way. As a key path to that goal: learn English, and learn it as quickly and as well as possible.
As commenter J.H. Bowden wrote here, “Becoming an American isn’t embracing a culture, but embracing a set of ideas.” That might be one of the more singular aspects of this country as opposed to more homogeneous nations. A Frenchman is a Frenchman by virtue of birth and ancestry, but that’s much less true of Americans, who are meant to be united by the ideas expressed in the Constitution, which are in turn based on the principles of the Enlightenment.
The French themselves have been experiencing the problems inherent in assimilation–or, rather, the difficulties associated with its lack, or its partial application–in their country. The vast numbers of Moslem immigrants to France are mostly from North Africa, and they have remained for the most part in poverty-stricken enclaves, encouraged in many ways to keep key elements of their own culture that clash with those of the French. Some of this French discord and confusion has been played out in the furor about French laws banning the wearing of religious symbols and garb in the schools, for example, customs which are seen as violating the separation of church and state in a nation wary of church influence on the educational system.
The question about assimilation is where to draw the line, and how? What are the consequences of a failure to adopt and adapt to the mores of the prevailing culture–especially if one has customs that run counter to principles of that culture?
We have a tradition of respecting the rights of minorities–that’s part of the reason so many immigrants want to come to this country, and do. There are even groups who have been here quite a long time who have continued to isolate themselves from the mainstream in many aspects of culture and dress–the Amish are a good example of this, as well as the Mennonites (see this for a discussion of their beliefs and origins).
So, have these groups “assimilated?” Not exactly. But the ways in which they are in accord with the basic belief system of this country are more important than surface differences in dress or the use of the automobile. They are peaceful and respectful of the rights of others. They may speak another language at home, but they are all fluent in English and use it with outsiders. They are dedicated to religious tolerance, both for themselves and for others–that’s why they originally came here, in fact.
However, it’s interesting that there are restrictive aspects of Amish life that would appear to violate some of our beliefs, such as, for example, the fact that education for Amish children only goes up to the eighth grade. I suppose that this might be more controversial if it were more widely known, or if the Amish themselves were seen as a threat to anyone, rather than a quaint and harmless group.
In researching the Amish for this post, I ran across the following fascinating tidbit:
Some Amish groups practice a tradition called rumspringa (“running around”). Teens aged 16 and older are allowed some freedom in behavior. It is a interval of a few years while they remain living at home, yet are somewhat released from the intense supervision of their parents. Since they have not yet been baptized, they have not committed to follow the extremely strict behavioral restrictions and community rules imposed by the religion. They may date, go out with their friends, visit the outside world, go to parties, drink alcoholic beverages, wear jeans, etc. The intent of rumspringa is to make certain that youth are giving their informed consent if they decide to be baptized. About 80% to 90% decide to remain Amish.
This indicates to me that, despite the restrictions of Amish life, and their differences from the mainstream, they retain a surprising amount of dedication to freedom of choice and belief which is in line with principles for which this country stands.
The major problem with lack of assimilation lies when there’s a clash with such principles, and yet a concomitant demand for protection for such a belief system. This yields the contradiction involved in tolerating the intolerant.
Tolerating the intolerant; it’s a conundrum I’ve written about before:
Tolerance applied without any distinction can become a trap. That way lies madness–not to mention the seeds of the destruction of tolerant societies themselves.
Just discovered your blog last week or so and like it very much. Have put the link on my own and plan to visit daily.
I mentioned something about Americans’ “naive placating” which goes to the tolerance issue. Got flamed bad. Must find another way to say it.
I’ve had many (more than a dozen now) Indonesian graduate and underagraduate students in the lab. They are an interesting lot. All of them are very fond of their homeland and culture, family and friends, church and education. Some wish to return home, but most want to stay in the US. They have an extensive network of friends, relatives, and churchmates that they use to find jobs, get housing at the universities, etc. Despite their pride and love of Indonesian culture, they absolutely refuse to balkenize themselves, and openly express their appreciation of their new home. They are very sensitive to others in the lab or during one of their frequent open dinners (what food!!) at a campus church they attend. They never speak Indonesian when an anybody else walks into the lab (I also have Turkish, Korean, and American students), even if they had been discussing personal things, like “boys” (most are young women)they immediately switch to English. Interestingly, they are all of Chinese-Indonesian decent; there ancestors arrived in Indonesia several centuries ago. All of them speak Chinese and have visited some part of China. Their fanilies insist that they remember and hold dear their Chinese heritage, and they do. So my last grad student to graduate left for Chicago, and hooked up with the Chritian Chinese-Indonesian community there. She plans to marry here (Chinese-Indonesian would be her first choice, but she told me “a good Christian man” of any nationality is what she wants for a husband. Even if she marries an American, she said her children will learn Indonesian, Chinese and English, and will travel to each land, and respect each part of their heritage. Yet, these students embody the exact opposite of “Multiculturalism,” and they want nothing to do with that sort of politics. Go figure.
As I mentioned to Neo, multiculturalists on the Left are fake multiculturalists, like liberals on the Left are fake liberals.
True multiculturalists are more than the sum of slogans and what not.
It seems to me that one of the key problems of assimilation today is that the old “Iron Triangle” of Home-School-Church that used to reinforce each other in promoting adoption of American values and assimilation, has largely been subverted as have many other aspects of American society. Add to this the idea prevalent today that new come immigrants should hew to their old culture and language in preference to English and American ways and the problems of assimilation grow worse. When, in the case of Muslims, you add the fact that all non-Muslims are veiwed as unclean and inferior and Muslims are told not to befriend or associate with them, that Christians and Jews, indeed members of any other religion, are their enemies and that western civilization is corrupt and you have the makings of a very dangerous situation for our country.
Brad,
I’m curious why you term your students’ attitude as “exact opposite of ‘multiculturalism’. What you described about their attitude sounds like what I’d describe as ‘multiculturalism’. What definition of ‘multiculturalism’ are you using?
Wikipedia defines ‘multiculturalism’ as: “stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences within a country’s borders.” How is this inconsistent with what you described about your Indonesian students? Your Indonesian students tolerate cultural differences (they are, as you describe, willing to consider “any good Christian man” as a potential spouse) and also stress mutual respect (out of respect to non-Indonesian speakers, they switch to speaking in English in their presence). How, exactly, is this not multicultural, according to the above definition? Can you explain?
“She plans to marry here (Chinese-Indonesian would be her first choice, but she told me “a good Christian man” of any nationality is what she wants for a husband.”
Adam, I can think of one VERY good reason…
It is called “right to permanent residence”.
We have international students who try it on in NZ as well.
I’m curious why you term your students’ attitude as “exact opposite of ‘multiculturalism’. What you described about their attitude sounds like what I’d describe as ‘multiculturalism’. What definition of ‘multiculturalism’ are you using?
I can’t speak directly for Brad, but I’d like to take a stab at it:
The term “multiculturalism” as it is used on college campuses and by many on the left is merely a code word for anti-Westernism or anti-Americanism. It holds that the West is the scourge of the earth and that all evil derives from it. “Celebrating our differences” often means “induce as much white guilt as you possibly can” or “throw whitey under the bus.”
Also tied into this particular belief about multiculturalism is moral relativism, which holds that “we can’t judge” other cultures or any aspects of them, because…
…because we’re the ones who are really evil. Or something like that.
There’s quite a bit of value in not judging other cultures, simply because the differences often constitute a difference in style, e.g., the way you give and receive gifts, how you find a marriage partner, the role of parents vs. children in the family.
The false version of multiculturalism holds that no culture can be better than another (except Western/American culture, which is the dregs of humanity). Honor killings are, for example, “just their culture,” not a horrific practice that a particular culture picked up. And should leave off. Just as democracy isn’t superior to tyrrany.
The Indonesians that Brad refers to are, indeed, practicing what I would call true multiculturalism. And many on the left think that this is also their definition.
If they got rid of the anti-American/Western bias, it would be.
As a child growing up my family used to get a couple of Amish produced educational magazines (“Blackboard Bulletin” was the name of one) and used some of their reading curriculum.
Anecdotally, my impression has always been that Amish schools provide a rather more old fashioned education: Amish 8th graders may miss out a broad range of topics but probably have English writing and grammar skills and Mathematics skills equivalent to more of a 9th or 10th grade education…
Prob, what a whitless fool you be. These students will all get their residancy through their employers, because of their talents. They don’t need to marry into it. What a judgemental creep you are.
Adam,
Despite their tight-knit community, their goal is social integration (and good jobs!), and they have no desire to be viewed as a “separate” entity, and no need of anyone “stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences within a country’s borders” on their behalf. They expect to be treated well by others because they excel in their studies (which is why they are here in the first place), conform to the cultural expectations of their hosts, and treat others kindly. The fact that they always switch to English in the presence of non-Indonesians is not an expression of “mutual respect” for other balkanized groups, but a profound, one-way, respect for the norms of their new home (for example, they only switch to Chinese with the Chinese grad students when all attempts communicate in English have failed, which is quite often). They do not “tolerate cultural differences,” they are here because of cultural differences. Their desire to maintain a connection to their heritage is personal, not political; they don’t wear this heritage as a badge of identity. The only reason I am so aware of it is because so many of them have worked for me for months (the undergrads) or years (the grad students) and I have come to know them well (even meeting many of their parents when they graduate). I specifically mentioned that they want nothing to do with multicultural politics, which they (at least those that I have discussed politics with) view as silly and bassackwards: the accomplishments of the West are what have led them and their siblings to seek an education in the US, the UK, NZ, or Australia. They wish to benefit from the West, not change it to something resembling home (except for the food). Most are pro-West in a way that no Western “Multiculturalist” could ever be, no matter what they may think of any given political act (most, though not all, were against the current war); for the most part, by American standards, they would be considered conservatives. In summary, they seek opportunity, not group advantage, which is the actual political definition of “multiculturalism,” no matter what Wikapedia may state.
The sort of politics Brad is refering to in concerning Multiculturalism, is the politics that say that AMericans are uber-menschen with the highest moral and civilized standards in the universe, and that therefore Americans alone are responsible for much of the evil in the world. Americans should not judge other cultures inferiorly because other cultures are already inferior and also because America is the source of original sin so to speak.
Fake multiculturalism. Multiculturalism that simply means anti-Americanism.
dicentra,
Posted before I read your comment. I agree with you.
Prob,
You’re still slimey.
Brad
dicentra,
I think you are just using a caricature of a “multicultarist”. You write that multiculturalists believe that “honor killings are, for example, “just their culture””. I’ve never seen anyone (whether they are self-styled multiculturalists or not) believe such a thing. Frankly, I think you are exaggerating for rhetorical purposes.
Hmm, so we are reduced to name-calling and insult already? And after only one comment… dearie dearie me! What immense and overpowering intelligence!
I have been told that I could be banned for less.
Interesting!
Ka whakapohani!!!
Brad,
If you look at the Wikipedia article on “Indonesian Chinese”, you will notice some interesting things:
“Many ethnic Chinese [in Indonesia] were supporters of colonial rule. Indeed, in the early years of the Netherlands East Indies, ethnic Chinese helped strengthen Dutch domination in the region.”
“Beginning in the late nineteenth century, most of these families underwent rapid westernization. By the early decades of the twentieth century, many of them (especially those domiciled around Batavia) had become more “Dutch” than the Dutch themselves.”
“In many parts of Indonesia, however, they are represented among the wealthier classes out of proportion with their small numbers. According to a survey of corporations listed on the Jakarta Stock Exchange, the Indonesian Chinese community was thought to own or operate a large fraction of major Indonesian corporations.”
“[T]he stereotype [exists] that Indonesian Chinese people are all extremely wealthy, a common perception in Indonesian society.”
In other words, you’re looking at a group that is in many ways (or is perceived to be) a dominant minority in Indonesia, and is quite westernized and pro-western already.
That could explain a lot of things about what you observed.
Through part my parent’s side, I am a 3rd generation boat person. These Bohemian and Norwegian immigrants did not teach their language to their children because they were to be Americans. Part of one name was even altered to sound more American. They came for opportunity, land and freedom. They adopted and adapted and gave up most of their homeland customs and they did not feel they were owed anything except the opportunity to work. Voting and speaking English was a source of pride for them and some served in our military forces – 3 in time of war. I think most of this does not exist with most current immigrants. Desire and pride is often replaced with a subtle feeling of being owed something simply because they are alive and here. I would agree with Ymir, that multiculturalism is a PC term for anti-Americanism.
What is with the name calling, Brad?
Adam: That could explain a lot of things about what you observed.
And Adam’s series of comments here could illustrate a lot of what’s wrong with left-wing “multiculturalism”. When he thought that the students were merely “tolerating cultural differences”, etc., he was puzzled — how is this not multiculturalism, he asks? But when told that they have no desire to be viewed as a separate, permanent minority, that their connection to their culture is “personal, not political”, that “they seek opportunity, not group advantage”, and particularly when told that they are here precisely because of the cultural advantages of the West — ah, then a light goes on. But not a light he appreciates, clearly.
Luckily, however, at this point Wikipedia comes to his aid and informs him that this particular ethnic mixture was pro-western all along! Whew! So they’re not a real immigrant group after all, and we (or at least he) can simply dismiss any evidence they might provide that would run counter to multi-culti doctrine — doctrine that, for example, exalts the group over the individual, exalts group differences over similarities, exalts minority culture over common culture, and exalts cultural relativism over cultural critique. That was close!
Neo – what you are saying boils down to there being fewer non-political commonalities to the American identity – there are no uniform religious or ethnic aspects to the identity (and those aspects of identity are part of Europe’s problem). Being an American largely means adhering to the ideas of the Constitution – at least in the public sphere (and there’s another huge degree of freedom!).
I think this formulation is more straighforward than talk about “tolerance for minorities”. It’s really just systematic tolerance for everyone.
As neocon states that it is difficult to write and not be misunderstood. Language as it is presently used is a less than effective way to communicate. Even when one has the luxury of being able to read “body language” we still misunderstand what a communicator is trying to impart.
Now extrapolate that to a nation like the US where everything depends on a well informed citizen. Nuance of is important.
The reason I want everyone to learn English is so that no one can be lead astray by people who would use their inability to understand the language used by, government, politicians, business et al.
My wife’s parents spoke Portugese at home, but everyone in the family knew English. They assimilated.
I use to kid my wife that during the winter here in Florida it is too cold and we should move to Costa Rica. I bought a Spanish course for my computer just in case we decided to go south. I want to understand the language of the country I am in because then I know what is going on.
The same is true for those who come to the US. If knowledge is power then understanding English is a step in the direction of gaining power. It would seem to me that the only people who would keep immigrants from having to learn English are the ones who want them powerless.
Without a common set of core values, assumptions and ways of looking at central issues–the things that used to be taught to incoming immigrants in previous generations by our primary and secondary schools, then reinforced by churches and the family, its extremely hard to have true assimilation. Along the way, common moral values were also taught; immigrants might not agree with them all but, at least, they knew what they were. From what I see, this kind of routine just isn’t possible after the deconstrution of the key concepts that used to be accepted–take “patriotism” as an example. Then look at the schools that used to be the lead organizations in this process. I doubt that many schools are filled with teachers and administrators who feel the same certitude and zeal that used to prevail. From what I’ve seen, today’s schools are much more likely to celebrate the values and cultures of the ethnic groups and countries its students come from than those of America.
Sally,
You don’t know nothing about me or about my thought processes. Please do not try to second-guess my thought processes on the basis of the few lines I write hear — you will be embarrassingly wrong like you just were. (Actually, you trying to “diagnose” my thinking in this way reminds me of Bill Frist “medically diagnosing” Terry Schiavo on the basis of a videotape he saw on television. I think you’re much more intelligent to fall into this kind of trap).
For your information, I detest political correctness and groupthink of all kinds, whether of the left or of the right. And oh, by the way, I have nothing to do with liberal Democrats. I dislike them intensely and you could say that I campaigned against them in the last elections — I volunteered for the Ralph Nader campaign.
Hello Mr. snowonpine, as early as the 18th century, Dr. Samuel Johnson defined “patriotism” in his celebrated dictionary (the first dictionary of the English language) as: “the last refuge of scoundrels”.
Typically, you will see politicians wrapping themselves in the flag when they need to distract attention from real issues. It’s a distracting technique.
The last thing we want schools to be teaching is “patriotism”. “Patriotism” leads to a dangerous “my country right or wrong” mentality, which is antithetical to critical thinking.
I am Indian and I’ve protested against my country’s government numerous times when I’ve seen them do “patriotic” but harmful things. When India joined the nuclear rat race nine years ago by testing nuclear weapons, I as an Indian protested against it even though “patriotic” Indians applauded.
“Patriotism” has the dangerous potential to blind one to truth and reality.
Leftist multiculturalism is a type of tribalisation, with “victim-cultures” at the top of the hierarchy, and “oppressor cultures” such as successful capitalist western culture, at the bottom. The force of law will enforce this hierarchy however necessary.
European males are seen as a “carrier” of the toxic western oppressor culture, so policies like affirmative action are devised to place european males at a disadvantage in school admissions, hiring for employment, and in obtaining government business contracts.
Multiculturalism as it is practised in universities, corporate human resources departments, and governments at all levels is the opposite of tolerance. It is directed intolerance toward targeted “oppressor” groups, and paternalistic protection from competition for “victim” groups.
http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/07/04/patriotism-in-the-modern-age/
Bookworm has the goods on patriotism, I suggest you read her post. Btw, people like me aren’t Vivek’s take it or leave it characterization of patriotism. Wreteched Refuse fits that bill better than patriots.
Well, since “my country right or wrong” is the antithesis of critical thinking, clearly “other countries right or wrong” is the epitome of it.
Which is why it’s so important to teach multiculturalism in schools, of course.
If you stop to think about it, there are probably 2 countries in the world where a person can immigrate and become “one of them”. The United States and Australia.
Even if you speak with an accent you will be accepted as an American, but if you moved to France or Germany or… take your pick of other country, you will always be an outsider. Not just in acceptance by the people of the country, but also (in many cases) by law.
In the US – about the only thing an immigrant can’t do is become the President. Everything else is open. In Mexico, an immigrant can’t hold office, can’t head up a large company, can’t can’t can’t.
Assimilation is made easier here by the fact that laws don’t restrict anyone from making their lives better and/or getting involved in running their government.
It’s made harder by people not learning English. It’s the main mode of communication in this country. It’s very difficult to get far without it. Some manage, but it’s difficult. But just because you learn English does not mean you must give up anything else. Although that seems to be the mantra for those who object to making the effort.
I think the requirement to learn English is unnecessary. English will be spoken by the 2nd generation if not the first, so there’s never a long-term problem, if any at all. Hasn’t a border with Mexico for hundreds of years taught us that? Second generations from that constant influx has given us some of our finest citizens – educators, writers, fighters for the underdog, creators of wealth and some of our most decorated and bravest of soldiers.
Frankly, the ‘Learn English Or Else’ requirement seems designed to put money into the hands of English instruction and testing entities – which will pop up and multiply like toadstools after a rain – and they would most likely be diploma mills anyway – you spend your time in class, you pay your fee and you get your certificate in English. I’m all in favor of Congress creating business opportunities but not from such an unnecessary requirement, the enactment of which has a high probability of being a farce.
On the other hand, requiring businesses and social agencies to provide translation seems an onerous requirement – non-English speaking clients and customers should have to provide their own translation – as in most societies elsewhere.
Well, it seem like I always pick concepts that touch a nerve. Patriotism was what came to mind but I could have as easily chosen “Liberty” or “Democracy” or “Sacrifice” or, even “Honor” or “Duty.” and probably have gotten a rise out of some poster.
It is always a pleasure when disparate pieces all come together in a pattern and such a moment came a few months ago when I discovered the thinking of Antonio Gramsci. This 20th century Italian Marxist thinker believed in revolution carried out, not through force, but through subversion of a society’s ruling concepts and key institutions, which he believed would enable revolutionaries to bring down the ruling “hegemony” and replace it with their own. Use constant propaganda–movies, books, lectures, TV and radio, school curriculums, advertising, art, the theater–to delegitimize the existing concepts, devalue the existing institutions, all the while proclaiming how these new meanings, the new ways of institutional functioning are all better, more enlightened, fair and progressive and slowly remake the institutions, replace the concepts with your own and, voila, you have conquered that society. Gramsci’s ideas have been well understood and favored on college campuses for quite a few decades and supposedly have influence only second to Marx; the “educated” and cultured” people of the academy have been only too receptive to such revalorizations of traditional American society and civilization.
This subversion of the building blocks of American society–family–school-church, the devaluation and deligitimization, then remaking of key concepts, like “patriotism,” or “religion,” praised as progress and sophistication has been going on for several decades now and from my perspective American society is much worse off in many respects that it was in the past when such concepts were not seen through such a thick haze of cynicism and contempt. You can, indeed, point to examples, plentiful, I might add, of “patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel” this, however, does not deligitimize the concept itself. As in all areas of life, a finely tuned BS meter is an essential tool.
On Dr. Sam:Johnson and the by now famous definition…
Does anyone ever think to look up the actual quotation in an edition of Bartlett’s??
Patriotism is NOT defined in such a way in the Johnson Dictionary. My copy of Bartlett’s – albeit an older one – places the quotation in Boswell’s Life Of Johnson.
On page 547 Johnson remarks to the effect that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”. Which is the exact quote.
The context of the remark is not that only scoundrels rely on patriotism, but the, when confronted, a scoundrel will take tactical refuge in some flavor of patriotism. Not a condemnation of patriotism, but of the methods of scoundrels.
Precision, people, precision. And always check out the original source of a quotation before using.
Or perhaps one could say that Gramsci advocated retuning our BS meters to a different array of settings?
My reading in the schoolbooks of our parents and grand parents finds that patriotism is essential to their ideal of American education. The belief in America and American ideas permeates all their teaching.
That is no longer the case in the public schools. As with snow/pine I don’t understand how or why that foundation has changed.
An old professor of Chinese philosophy of mine who specialized in Chinese Communist educational philosophy was fond of pointing out the Chicom’s belief that in teaching any subject, you are also teaching some political point; even by leaving some subjects out of the curriculum or not teaching certain approaches you are, indeed, teaching a political lesson. By devaluing and neglecting the teaching of American history in depth, or by teaching such history “from the Left,” by teaching only selected incidents, not all, by giving one side only, by denigrating or just ignoring such things as “patriotism” today’s teachers are making a political point as surely as were those prior teachers who taught those subjects with fervor. I prefer the old way, the new way is leading us to our destruction.
Snowopine,
Gransci is probably a more important influence than Marx, because Marxist concepts are, IMO, derivatives of Rousseau. Modernized derivatives, because Marx lived to see the industrial revolution, whereas Rousseau died well before it formed. Gramsci had little influence: he was a weird little man in jail most of his last years. What he did was forcast; he saw what would come 60 years after his death with amazing clarity. He saw the “separation of church from society” and the “activist jurisprudence” and the “activist media” and the “ranting ignorati of academia” almost as if in a dream. He is to me, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, but he gets lost in the mess because he wrote so little (mostly from prison) and died so young (thanks to Mussolini). Of course he saw these things as good, but such vision is rare, no matter what pervervions may come of it.
Someone gave the example of excusing honor killings as “part of the culture” and was told that was extreme.
How about the professor in Norway who excused the rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Norway on multiculturalism?
“An incredibly revealing article that tells us all we need to know about the multiculturalist fetish in Europe and some parts of North America, not to mention the need for change within Islam. Apparently, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by “non-Western” immigrants – a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (note: her name is Unni Wikan) as saying that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.””
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html
I much prefer the story of the British officer who ended suttee (sp?) in India. When the Indians were about to throw the widow on the funeral pyre, he told them to stop. “But in India, we burn the widow!” they protested.
“And in England, we hang men who burn women,” he replied.
Class factotum wrote:
much prefer the story of the British officer who ended suttee (sp?) in India. When the Indians were about to throw the widow on the funeral pyre, he told them to stop. “But in India, we burn the widow!” they protested.
“And in England, we hang men who burn women,” he replied.
You are spreading disinformation. Indian social reformers had been requesting the authorities (who were British, because the British were ruling the country then) to pass a law outlawing Suttee for decades. The British kept dragging their feet because they, obviously, didn’t stand much to gain from preventing the practice. It was at the behest of Indian reformers, especially Raja Rammohun Roy of Calcutta, that the British finally reluctantly agreed to decree the abolition of Suttee in 1829.
Americans in the past had a distinct dislike of British rule. But all has been forgiven, although perhaps not forgotten, so that Americans tend to highlight British colonialist practices as a compare and contrast to weak American hegemony style negotiation.
Well, it’s pretty obvious the British, like all European colonial powers, did not rule their colonies well and expended too much power too early, forcing them to withdraw.
Adam:
I know something about you and your thought processes based on the “few lines” you write here, and you know something about me as well — that’s just how writing works. But my comment wasn’t meant to be personal, despite how it sounded — as I said there, I simply took you as illustrative of a tendency on the left in general (not confined to Democrats). In this tendency, the term “multiculturalism” plays an important role in part at least because it can sound so inoffensive and even admirable, all the while being used as a wedge to undermine and split apart the idea of a common culture and of core cultural values.
If that’s not you, then I was mistaken to take you as my illustration, and I apologize.
Vivek: The British kept dragging their feet because they, obviously, didn’t stand much to gain from preventing the practice.
So it was the Indians themselves who wanted to get rid of suttee! And the British who were “dragging their feet”!! Who, pray tell, was in favor of it?!
Vivek,
I admit my suttee comment was apocryphal. But it was a throwaway.
Let’s get back on the multicultural track. How about the real point, i.e, the rapes in Norway that are supposed to be excused because those Muslim men are not used to seeing such provocatively-dressed women?
(And I’m with Sally. If the Indians wanted to abolish suttee and the Brits wanted to abolish suttee, then who was in favor of it?)
“If they got rid of the anti-American/Western bias, it would be.
dicentra”
Still no IMO. It is just another ideology of self congratulation. With lefty multiculturalism, you assume you understand the world’s cultures, by virtue of being wise enough to know their essential equality (i.e., you’re a leftist ergo you know stuff… eye roll..)…. Of course, this is without actually having to know anything about the world’s cultures or making any effort to actually learn about them…
Its a variant on progressives thinking they are in tune with ‘the world’s’ pulse because France and Germany sometimes vote their way in the UN (without even understanding France or Germany BTW)….
I haven’t historical accounts of India’s colonial policy, the sources aren’t as available in English as like the Revolution is, but I tend to suspect the soldiers might have been for it but the British monarchy and house of commons was deadlocked by bureacracy. British colonies did not have self-autonomy, they could not make laws by themselves. Americans, especially, should know that. Read the Declaration of Independence at blackfive.
Sally wrote:
“So it was the Indians themselves who wanted to get rid of suttee! And the British who were “dragging their feet”!! Who, pray tell, was in favor of it?!”
The fallacy you’re making is in thinking that “Indians” are a homogeneous group and all Indians think/thought alike. That is not so.
As I said, Hindu social reformers agitated for a long time to get suttee banned, before the British agreed to ban it. Meanwhile, Hindu conservatives opposed it. Also,
very often it was greedy relatives interested in the property of the dead husband who were behind promoting the practice of widow-burning (in the same way that, during the time that witches used to be burnt at the stake in Christian countries, it was very often the desire of interested parties to get hold of the property of the “witch” that often led to the accusation of “witchcraft”).
If you look at most social reforms, in any country, you will see that some support it and agitate to get it passed, while some oppose it. For example, consider abolition of slavery in your own country. Many reformers in your country agitated for abolition, while many continued to oppose it.
The same thing with the women’s vote and the suffragette movement in England. Many agitated in favor of it, while many opposed it.
In all these cases, fortunately, the social reformer side eventually won over the pro-status-quo side.
I mentioned that the Indian social reformer, Raja Ram Mohan Roy of Calcutta, was one of the most persistent agitators for getting suttee abolished. If you want to read more about him and the role he played, see the following page:
http://www.boloji.com/people/04003.htm
” Roy’s efforts to abolish the practice of Sati were largely driven by his concern for the moral dimensions of religion. It was the sight of the burning of his brother’s widow on her husband’s funeral pyre and his inability to save her that spurred Ram Mohan into action.
“He delved into the [Hindu] scriptures in great detail and proved that the practice of Sati could not gain moksha (salvation) for the husband as each man was responsible for his own destiny. He also realized that very often it was greedy relatives interested in the property of the dead husband who were behind promoting the practice.”
“His relentless efforts in the form of petitions, writings and the organizing of vigilance committees paid off when the William Bentinck administration passed a law in 1829 banning the practice of Sati. Roy also succeeded in starting a revolution for women’s education and women’s right to property. By delving into Hindu scriptures, he showed that women enjoyed equal freedom with men.”
“Among Roy’s other firsts was the publishing of a newspaper in an Indian language.”
All this is common knowledge in India, by the way (which happens to be my country).
And so what were all these social reformers doing before the British got there, Vivek? Whose feet were doing the dragging then? Those “greedy relatives” too much for the reformers at that point, were they? Why did it take the “foot dragging” British to abolish the practice of burning widows in your country? And why, just by the way, for someone so aware of diversity of opinion, is it that you seem so content to lump “the British” into a single, “foot dragging” “homogeneous group”?
No, I think you’re missing the point of the story of the British officer — which is that not all “customs” are equal, and that most if not all of the “reforms” that have rocketed around the world in just the last couple of centuries have sprung from the ideas of the European Enlightenment. Not because there’s anything special about Europeans, but entirely because there’s something very special and important about those ideas, whoever takes them up and spreads them. Out of those ideas came, among many other things, and after millennia of oppression, ignorance, and misery, the ending of slavery, the spread of literacy and education, and universal suffrage — as well as the ending of the custom of burning widows.
Give credit where credit is, India has done some good reforms.
Vivek’s not missing the point, he made a good explanation about suttee and how the Indians dealt with it. He wasn’t arguing for or against multiculturalism European style.
The British Colonial polices weren’t very enlightened. They eased after the American Revolution, but still, a bureacracy is a bureacracy.
Sally asked:
“And so what were all these social reformers doing before the British got there, Vivek? Whose feet were doing the dragging then?”
This is an intelligent and fair question. The answer is quite simple, however.
The Wikipedia article on “Sati” provides the answer to your question. I am quoting from it, and have italicized the parts which provide the answer to your question:
“In the Upper Gangetic plain, while it occurred, there is no indication that it was especially widespread. The earliest known attempt by a government to stop the practice took place here, that of Muhammad Tughlaq, in the Sultanate of Delhi in the 14th century.
“In the Lower Gangetic plain, the practice may have reached a high level fairly late in history. it appears possible, based on available evidence and the existing reports of the occurrences of it, that the greatest incidence of sati in any region and period, in terms of total numbers, occurred in Bengal and Bihar in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This was during the earlier period of British rule, and before the abolition.
As you can see, the practice was hardly common earlier, and incidents of Sati reached a high point only in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Now, recall that the British started ruling Bengal since 1757 and conquered most of the rest of India soon afterwards. So, at the time when Sati becomes more than a few isolated incidents, the British are already ruling the country, and so, to get legislation passed, obviously you then have to get the British to pass the legislation. Since there were hardly any instances of coerced Sati before the late eighteenth century (as the article shows), it wasn’t a social problem then.
Sally also asks:
“And why, just by the way, for someone so aware of diversity of opinion, is it that you seem so content to lump “the British” into a single, “foot dragging” “homogeneous group”? ”
That’s also a fair question. Obviously, if you look at the British in Britain during this period, they were a non-homogeneous group with a wide variety of opinions. (In the early nineteenth century, even the Chartist movement was happening in Britain in which radical industrial workers were posing a challenge to the British ruling class!)
But in the context of this particular discussion, we’re obviously talking about the British in India>, i.e. the relatively small and relatively homogeneous group of colonial administrators sent down from Britain to rule India, carefully selected by the British government and having had to pass the Indian Civil Service administration. These British bureaucrats/empire-builders in India in the early nineteenth century were, therefore, a fairly homogeneous group, carefully selected and representing a common and fairly narrow set of interests. Very different from the wide swirl of opinion and interests and views then prevailing among the British in Britain
Sorry Sakar or Ymar or whatever — Vivek was indeed missing the point of the story, and so are you. It doesn’t take away any credit due to Raja Ram Mohan Roy or any other of the Indian reformers.
Sally wrote:
“Most if not all of the “reforms” that have rocketed around the world in just the last couple of centuries have sprung from the ideas of the European Enlightenment.”
Well, I’m a tremendous fan of the Enlightenment. (Spinoza is my favorite philosopher). As Sakar has rightly pointed out, I think, you are misreading my views and opinions.
The error that you’re committing here is to think, however, that all the good reform and change that has come about in the last 200+ years can be traced back to the European Enlightenment. I think your problem is that, since you’re a fan of the mighty hammer of the European Enlightenment (I’m one too, by the way), every social reform of the last 200+ years is looking to you as if it were a nail beaten into proper shape by that one and the same mighty hammer. But that just ain’t so. While the European Enlightenment was a tremendous source of positive agency in the world, that doesn’t mean that there weren’t other sources of agency in the world as well, which also accomplished some good things on their own. And such things as European imperialism (from which you yourselves in your country had to liberate yourself through a revolution in 1776, remember?), although itself an offspring of the same Enlightenment project, was very often a source of negative agency.
You may want to take a look at the following article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1807649,00.html
I think you’ll find it interesting.
P.S. It’s been a pleasure exchanging opinion with you, but I’m going on vacation and will not be monitoring the replies posted here for the next few weeks.
P.P.S. You may want to be a little less arrogant next time. Have you looked at what is happening to your country’s image in India in the past year? Take a look at it here (look at the table closely): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1807649,00.html
People like you, spouting disinformation and taking this arrogant tone, sure aren’t helping your country’s image abroad.
I wrote:
“You may want to be a little less arrogant next time. Have you looked at what is happening to your country’s image in India in the past year? Take a look at it here (look at the table closely): http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commen…1807649,00.html
People like you, spouting disinformation and taking this arrogant tone, sure aren’t helping your country’s image abroad.”
Sorry, I posted the wrong URL above. I meant the following URL:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252
My full name is Ymarsakar. I broke it up so people didn’t have to spell it all out. It’s either Ymar or Sakar, last and first name.
Oh, Vivek, if we all adopted your habit of judging entire nations by our opinions of one inhabitant, why we might think all of India was made up of defensive and disingenuous point-dodgers. But luckily, few others are so readily biased.
In any case, I never said that all good things came from the Enlightenment, nor would I deny that a number of bad things came from it. I do say that the general shape of the modern world is largely a product of the Enlightenment, and that that shape, for all its faults, is a vast improvement over virtually every previous society. Dodge the point all you like, the simple, unalterable fact of the matter of the practice of suttee, for example, is that it was Indians who practiced it, not the British, and it was the British who ended it, not the Indians. And the point of saying that, like the point of the story, is simply that moral judgments across cultures can and should be made. If that’s arrogance, we could do with more of it.
Sally wrote:
“it was the British who ended it, not the Indians.”
I think Vivek made the point quite effectively that the impetus to end Suttee came from Indian social reformers, who then made the British pass the legislation to end it. Since the British were ruling the country of India at the time (a result of British military superiority over Indians), the legislation could only have been enacted by the British, of course, since it was the British, and not the Indians, who were in control of the power to legislate at the time. So in a technical sense you are right that it was the British who “ended” Suttee (in the sense it was they who signed on the dotted line), but it’s amply established in the historical record that it was Indians who persuaded the British to pass that legislation and that the British would never have passed such a legislation on their own (the British didn’t particularly care about what was happening to native women).
So it seems more accurately to be a case of “It was (some) Hindus who practised Suttee, and it was the work of (some) Hindus that ended this practice.” In the same way that “It was (some) Christians who practised burning witches at the stake, and it was the work of (some) Christians that ended that practice.”
You also accuse Vivek of “dodging” the point, but I don’t see where he has “dodged” it. He has very patiently explained to you the facts of the matter, backing up everything that he said with evidence.
You also assert that you do not believe that all good things came from the European Enlightenment, but your insistence, in the face of the evidence pointed out to you that the abolition of Suttee is an example of a good thing that came from a source other than the European Enlightenment, that it must have come from the British, belies that assertion you made about your belief. It does seem like you are incapable of admitting that there were some developments (that can only be described as “good” things) that came about as a result of reasons that were not necessarily related to the European Enlightenment.
Nate: the British didn’t particularly care about what was happening to native women
This is merely a slur, and a particularly ugly and revealing one at that. Let’s look at one of the bits of “evidence” with which Vivek has supposedly backed up “everything that he said”, the piece on Raja Ram Mohan Roy — it turns out, according to that short article, that Roy himself was positively influenced by the British:
Though initially antagonistic towards British rule in India, Roy later began to feel that the country would benefit in terms of education and by exposure to the good points of Christianity. For this he was called a stooge of the British.
Well, but let’s leave that aside; let’s see instead if we can “very patiently” explain some facts of the matter:
– On the pre-British origins of the practice: Widow burning, the practice as understood today, started to become more extensive after about 500 AD, and the end of the Gupta empire. This is sometimes ascribed to the decline of Buddhism in India, the rise of caste based societies, and the idea that sati was used to reinforce caste status. There are also suggestions that the practice was introduced into India by the Huna invaders who contributed to the fall of the Gupta empire.
…
By about the 10th century sati, as understood today, was known across much of the subcontinent. It continued to occur, usually at a low frequency and with regional variations, until the early 19th century.
Wikipedia: “Sati (practice)”
According to this same source, the British were in fact officially “indifferent” to the practice at first, as they were to other local customs:
The British entered India as a trading body, and in the earlier periods of their rule, they were largely indifferent to local practices. A campaign against sati was however set up by the evangelical movement in Britain, particularly by William Wilberforce, as part of a campaign to increase missionary activity in India.
Nevertheless, unofficially, and in some regions, the British attempted to ban the practice well before Roy appeared on the scene:
Attempts to limit or ban the practice had been made by individual British officers in the 18th century, but without the backing of the British East India Company. The first formal British ban was in 1798, in the city of Calcutta only. The practice continued in surrounding regions.
And even after the British ban: Sati remained legal in some princely states for a time after it had been abolished in lands under British control. The last such state to permit it, Jaipur, banned the practice in 1846.
But of course all of these facts miss the great irony and the great point in this whole discussion — that it was the early British who were acting in accord with good “multicultural” doctrine: n
[Apparently there’s a limit to the length of comments on Haloscan — sorry for the interruption, but here’s the last paragraph again:]
But of course all of these facts miss the great irony and the great point in this whole discussion — that it was the early British who were acting in accord with good “multicultural” doctrine: namely, that the customs and practices of different cultures are morally incomparable, and that it’s wrong for one culture to impose itself on another. Only when this was finally gotten over could the practice finally be effectively abolished. Which is the point of the story of the “British officer” that started this off, apparently a General Charles Napier, who is simply quoted as saying:
You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.
And just to be clear on another point: I’m not trying to argue that Christianity is superior to Hinduism — I’m arguing that the concept of the modern individual and the values of reason and evidence are superior to the oppression and ignorance of traditional or feudal societies of any kind. Thus, the supposed counter-example of the Christian treatment of witches is actually just more evidence for my side of the argument, even though it’s irrelevant to this debate.
Sally wrote:
“it was the early British who were acting in accord with good “multicultural” doctrine: namely, that the customs and practices of different cultures are morally incomparable, and that it’s wrong for one culture to impose itself on another. Only when this was finally gotten over could the practice finally be effectively abolished.”
This is laughable. The reason the British were reluctant to ruffle feathers by interfering with local practices had nothing to do with multiculturalism, but everything with the fact that, like most imperialists everywhere, they were in India for resource-exploitation, not out of humanitarian concern. Anything that did not interfere with the business of resource exploitation and transfer of wealth was left alone.
The rhetoric, of course, was another matter. Sally takes Charles Napier’s rhetorical grandstanding at face value.
Imperialists everywhere use such rhetoric of do-goodism to cloak their real agenda. Let us not forget that even the Spanish conquistadores brought along priests in their expeditionary ships to the americas, to maintain the fiction that they were conquering the americas not for the gold and silver to plunder, but out of concern for the benighted natives.
I wonder how Sally explains the fact that, even though the British were ruling Bengal ever since 1757, why it took until 1829 and Raja Ram Mohan Roy and others’ persistent, decades-long agitation for the British to illegalize Suttee.
Sally: for a long-standing indigenous tradition within Indian philosophy which anticipates European enlightenment thought in many ways, you may want to read up on the Carvaka/Lokayata school of Indian philosophy. Take a look at the following page:
http://www.tutorgig.co.uk/ed/Carvaka
So we’ve established that:
a) The practice of burning women alive on their husband’s funeral pyre was “known across much of the Indian subcontinent” well before the British arrived, and had been in existence for the better part of 12 centuries despite any efforts of Indian reformers themselves.
b) The British made efforts to outlaw the practice, though only partially or regionally, well before their final, effective ban in 1829.
c) Even after the British ban, and the example that it set, the practice remained legal in Indian areas outside of British control for some years.
As to motives of the British, I think it’s clear they were mixed. On the one hand, no doubt commercial interests urged them to stay away from interfering with local customs and practices, and this is no doubt a reason why it took them nearly a century to accomplish what all the local reformers could not accomplish in 12 centuries. But on the other hand, despite those interests, they did effectively ban the practice, and in the face of powerful local opposition. It wasn’t just Napier’s rhetoric, in other words — though the rhetoric alone is very good — it was his actions that finally counted in ending a centuries-old scourge.
It’s about credit. I don’t believe either the Indians, British, or whomever can take sole credit for reforming Indian culture into a more Enlightened version.
Saying that there was no reform before the British, Sally’s argument, is not a valid justification to believe the result of the reform as all the British’s doing.
I’m a little “late in the game” – but I wanted to point out something in regards to the Amish community.
One must examine the entire culture to understand how they maintain this isolated “peace”. There is tremendous pressure on couples to have many children to sustain the community. Women are subservient, and anyone who does not accept the faith is ostracized. In many of the communities, this means breaking ALL ties. If a child is raised ONLY knowing this culture, the fear of losing their family if they reject the faith far outweighs the “freedom of choice” granted by the Rumspringa period. I think you are right – this is overlooked because they are not violent. I think it is the quaint horse and buggy image that blinds us. But I think it is very important for us to understand the entire system, I hear a lot of people sing praise to their “peaceful culture” without recognizing the requirements to keep this community isolated. (And there are a lot of gray areas for these communities!) We have already granted the Amish special consideration with child labor, military service and social security, and in many of the communities police ‘turn their head’ and let the community handle ‘criminal’ issues as dictated by their religious code.
Our nation should be very cautious about the special rights given in respect to “religious beliefs” – or we will not have a leg to stand on when communities try to integrate Sharia law, as they did in Canada.
I enjoy reading your posts! You seem to have had a “Dennis Miller Epiphany” LOL
Pingback:Latest Book Reviews