Multiculturalism: an old-fashioned idea

Way back in the 70s, when Trudeau ruled the Earth and Canadians were purging themselves of all human imperfections, some of the bright boys in Ottawa decided it was time to give up trying to squeeze Canada into a bilingual, bicultural straitjacket and, in the parlance of that time, “tell it like it is.”  The result was multiculturalism which was immediately enshrined in our document de jour, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  (Honestly, I think the idea had more to do with watering down Quebec nationalism than recognizing Ed Wong’s Golden Dragon restaurant, but that’s for another time.)  Multiculturalism has been the law of the land ever since.  Recently, however, our European cousins (notably, Angela Merkel and David Cameron) have decided that multiculturalism doesn’t work and there need to be some national standards all citizens should adhere to.  Surprisingly, this has not sparked the CBC (or anybody else) to raise the alarm in Canada over rightwing racists reaching for their copies of Mein Kampf.  This proves, once again, that Canadians are smarter than journalists and politicians combined and don’t really care about multiculturalism. It was a stupid idea in the first place.

Legislating multiculturalism in Canada is like trying to teach a sea otter to swim.  It doesn’t do any good but it really annoys the otter.  Canadians are multicultural by definition.  We can’t help it; it’s in our collective DNA.  Ask any Canadian what it means to be Canadian, and it might take them a while, but eventually they’ll get around to “We’re not Americans.”  This is exactly what Canadians are: we’re not Americans.  It’s the standard by which we judge ourselves, and after that nobody cares.  It’s the only question on the Citizenship Test (if we even have one.)  Ordinary Canadians don’t give a damn who, what or where a person is from.  We figure, if you’re willing to put up with the weather, you’re in.  Canada could take the Pepsi Challenge on Racism with any other country in the world and win.  It wouldn’t even be close.  Canadians care more about hockey than they do race, creed, colour or religion.

Multiculturalism was conceived in the olden days (the 60s-going-on-70s) when modern travel, information and immigration first brought Canada’s Chattering Class in contact with a few cultures other than their own.  Seduced by the American media’s addiction to race relations, and unable to control our enthusiasm and ignorance, we fell all over ourselves trying to prove our benevolence.  In short order, it became accepted wisdom in Canada that the quaint peoples of the world (who didn’t have modern conveniences like cars) were simply not strong enough to withstand the Anglo-American cultural juggernaut.  In other words, KFC was going to overwhelm tandoori chicken — whether 800 million South Asians liked it or not.  A bold statement from a couple of million Canadians but so be it.  This was called tolerance.  In actual fact, it was a blatant display of soft prejudice.  To naturally assume one culture’s inherent strength compared to another’s is nothing short of racism, no matter what you call it.  However, Canadians decided to take their patriarchal responsibilities seriously and protect these unfortunate people.   Multiculturalism was born.  The vertical mosaic was alive, and all was well with the world. 

Today, we understand that the vertical mosaic has actually become an ethnic archipelago.  Ethnic communities flourish in our major cities without ever having any contact with other ethnic communities flourishing just two or three blocks away.  Our inclusive society is more segregated now than it’s ever been — because we are rapidly losing the group identity that makes people wish to be included.  There is no real advantage to being a Canadian anymore — even in Canada — aside from financial gain and territorial location.  One might just as well remain Filipino, Somali — or Martian — for all it matters.

We also discovered that cultures come with a lot more than just odd hats and different spices in their food.  Sometimes, they have nasty little by-products like polygamy, honour killings, Sharia law and female circumcision, to name just a few.  If all cultures are equal (which by the way they are) in a legislated multicultural society, they must all be tolerated in their entirety.   There’s no third choice on this.  State-sponsored multiculturalism does not allow us to rummage through another person’s values and discard what we feel is inappropriate.  Without a set of core moral judgements, right and wrong become a matter of academic debate – and nothing more.

Canadians are a tolerant people (nutbars don’t count.)  Even though we are all different, historically we’ve had to work together to survive the climate and geography of our country.  Diversity is the natural state in which we exist.  However, as we continue to cling to the old-fashioned model of multiculturalism, many Canadians are beginning to wonder what advantage we gain by emphasising our differences — especially at the expense of all the things that should make us the same.

The Egyptian Evolution

American diplomatic ignorance never ceases to amaze me.  I swear, they’ve been taking stupid pills in Washington ever since Teddy Roosevelt was tiptoeing through the White House, twirling a Louisville Slugger.  This current crop of dunderheads has decided that the world is one big pizza delivery: if they don’t get results in 30 minutes or less, they want their money back.  Egypt has been around for 5,000 years, Barack, for God’s sake!  Have a little patience.  And while you’re at it, you might want to quit watching CNN and find somebody who knows what they’re doing — like — say — maybe – an Egyptian!

The situation in Egypt is so fluid right now nobody knows what’s going on, least of all the U.S. State Department.  But let me tell you what it’s not.

First of all, it’s not a domino.  The regime in Egypt is not going to collapse just because the people of Tunisia chased President Ben Ali out of office.  Egypt and Tunisia are two different countries.  I’m not going to bore you with the figures, but here are a few facts.   Compared to Tunisia, Egypt is huge.  To put it into perspective, there are just about twice as many people in Metro Cairo as there are in all of Tunisia.  Furthermore, the Tunisians are relatively wealthy and better educated then their Egyptian neighbours (20% of Egyptians live below the poverty line, versus just 3.8% of Tunisians.)  And, finally, just in case nobody noticed, Tunisia is full of Arabs, whereas Egypt — take a wild guess — is full of Egyptians.  They’re different.  Clinton can yip all she wants about the “perfect storm” in North Africa, but somebody in Virginia better tell her Moslems don’t all speak with a single voice.  They don’t even have the same accent.  There are 2,000 kilometres between Tunis and Cairo.  That’s about the same distance as Baltimore to Dallas with a guy by the name of Gaddafi in between.  C’mon, Hillary, use your head!

Secondly, Egypt isn’t some comic opera Moon over Parador principate and Hosni Mubarak is not a 1950s chrome and gold dictator with a funny hat.  This guy has been running the show at the Pyramids for 30 years; that’s longer than Anwar Sadat and Gamal Nasser combined.  He’s quietly done more to change Egyptian society than Muhammad Ali Pasha, the guy who started the whole thing.  Mubarak has taken Egypt from being a pariah in the Moslem world (because of the Israeli peace treaty) to being the leading spokesperson for Arab affairs.  And that’s without any significant reserves of oil; Egypt isn’t even a member of OPEC!  The Egyptian economy is ranked 27th in the world.  That’s larger than those of half the nations in the European Union.  This is a large complex society, with an emerging infrastructure and a burgeoning middle class.  It isn’t Junta-of-the-Week material.

Thirdly, there is no legitimate liberal opposition in Egypt.  Nobody stays in power for 30 years without somebody getting the thumbscrews along the way.  Over the years, Mubarak has put the dick back in dictator more than once and the jackboots to pretty much anybody who opposed him.  This has created a political void.  His NDP party clearly runs every segment of society, and there’s no other group significantly trained to handle things.  Nor is there a single populist movement – except one – The Moslem Brotherhood.  These boys are the moderate end of the fundamentalist Islamic revolution.  During his rule, Mubarak has both banned and tolerated the Brotherhood for the simple reason that he can’t get rid of them.  They also do good work in the poor areas of the country, like running schools, hospitals and charities.  The problem is that they want to turn away from secular Egypt, take a page out of Iran’s history book and build an Islamic Republic on the Nile.  And they’re not shy about using force either; rumour has it that they were the ones who helped pull the trigger on Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Unfortunately, any shift in power will have to include The Moslem Brotherhood.

Finally, despite the ramblings of CNN, the Egyptian people are more concerned about bread than ballots.  They see reform as jobs and food prices first — and votes second.  For the average Egyptian stability is the avenue to democracy, not the other way around.  They are mad at Mubarak, and rightly so.  They want him out yesterday because they blame him and his son for shifting the Egyptian economy toward heavy hitter capitalism and away from the national subsidy programs they’ve always had.  The recent worldwide recession has hurt Egypt badly.  The blunt edge of it fell on those people gathered in Tahrir Square.  They might be talking about constitutional change and democratic reform but their major concern is not political liberty: it’s economic stability.  These are two different things that should not be confused.  They want Mubarak out so they can go back to work and feed their families.  A prolonged summer of political upheaval is only going to make them angrier.

Mubarak has got to hit the road — the sooner the better.  After all, he’s coming up 83, and in our family, we don’t even let the grandpas work the TV remote control anymore.  The problem is at this point there is nothing there to take his place. And an electoral free-for-all would throw Egypt into chaos.  Nobody wants that.  Meanwhile, if the United States continues to exert random on-again-off-again pressure on an already fragile situation, they could destroy a perfect opportunity to further the cause of democracy.  Americans have always made a science of misreading foreign content.  Blinded by their love of liberty, they can’t always see past it.  They are notorious for beating people over the head with a ballot box and then packing their bags and going home. What Egypt needs from the United States right now, is a simple, straightforward message of support for an orderly transfer of power.  And America?  You’re a Superpower – act like it!

Why I don’t like Baby Boomers

After The Bucket List there were some comments that I was being a little hard on the Baby Boomers.  So to clarify, here, then, is a brief history of why I dislike the Baby Boom Generation.

In the autumn of 1945, millions of horny men and women around the world left the armed forces and returned home after a long absence.  They had just fought the most terrible war in history, and even though they’d hadn’t all been through hell, every single one of them had been close enough to smell it.  When they got home, they had one purpose in mind (Get your mind out of the gutter!): to forget the horrible things they had seen and done and reconstruct the world so their families would never have to witness the madness they had just been through.  They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, I’m here to tell you, but in the process, they created an enduring evil that still plagues us today – the Baby Boomers.

The children of the Greatest Generation were spoiled brats who grew into moody, inconsiderate adolescents.  Now, they are about to become grouchy, grasping old people.  The joys of adulthood escaped them entirely.  They were raised on equal doses of suburbia, affluence and Dr. Benjamin Spock.  They were indulged by everyone, who pampered them with everything the post war economic miracle could offer.  HoverMoms guarded them against all evil, and absentee Dads worked ever harder to provide them the luxuries they’d never had growing up.  Every pout required ice cream.  Every scraped knee demanded an inquiry into playground equipment.  Every wish was somebody’s command.   One bratty kid is a problem; 50 million is a disaster.  But they were the darlings of the world, a living symbol that, despite man’s hideous ability to obliterate all life on Earth, there was still promise and potential for a better future.

However, by the mid 50s, fractures were already starting to show.  In 1955, Rudolf Flesch published Why Johnny Can’t Read.  For anyone who bothered to look, Flesch’s book was not just an indictment of teaching methods but of the entire education system itself — and beyond.  Flesch sounded the alarm that overindulgence was producing an entire generation who didn’t have any basic skills.  He was also concerned that, as students moved through the system to more complex ideas, this ignorance would only snowball.  Flesch was right and he was largely ignored.

In the early 60s, the cracks became clearly visible.  Millions of young adults moved away from their suburban cocoons into the real world.  The shock was palpable.  For the first time, they saw deep social, political and economic problems and were astounded to discover that not everyone had shared their middle class privilege.  Without any basic understanding, they saw this as a systemic flaw which needed to be corrected.  Unable to grasp the simplest connections in a complex society or to formulate reasonable solutions they merely demanded wholesale change.  However, not everybody shared their middle class values or their middle class solutions.  There was no quick fix.  Unable to understand why they were no longer the centre of the universe but very much aware that the powers that be were not going to snap to and pay attention, the Baby Boomers, as they were beginning to be called, got angry.  The result was a five year temper tantrum that flared across university campuses all over the world.  Forsaking Kennedy for Castro, young people decided that steady work for incremental change was too hard.  They preferred the romantic life of the revolutionary (albeit free of serious consequences.)  If the system wouldn’t change immediately to suit them, they would kick and scream until it did.  Like most tantrums, this one tired itself out, but not before millions of lives had been disrupted.

The convulsions of the 60s tore great sections of our society apart.  The problem was, the anger of the Baby Boomers never went beyond childish rage.  Institutions were knocked down.  Social systems were destroyed.  However, without any long term dedication for reform nothing was built on the rubble.  It became Revolution for the Hell of It.  A sophomore party that got out of hand.  By the end of the decade, the Boomers were already losing interest and by the time things got serious, one May afternoon at Kent State, they’d all but disappeared.  They were gone, off to backpack Europe or the Himalayas in a frantic search for their “Me First” souls.

A couple of years later, they re-emerged when Disco swept the neighbourhood.  Their social conscience forgotten, it was time to dance and do coke and play with therapy.  The mess they left was somebody else’s problem.  Yippies became yuppies, and the Boomers never even looked back.  They had 40 more years of destruction ahead of them.

But there are other perspectives of the dominant generation.  Here’s one translated from Dutch — Over mijn generatie