Defending Multiculturalism for Dummies

On the popular video sharing site YouTube, a philosophical vlogger who goes by the handle qtronman (and who is a member of the YouTube Objectivists Group) has started a video debate by condemning Multiculturalism as unjust. In his video, he makes it clear that, by “Multiculturalism”, he is not referring to experiencing cultural customs, foods etc, and that he embraces the idea of learning things of value that people have contributed to human knowledge, wherever they might live etc. He says that, instead, “Multiculturalism, again, says that you cannot judge other cultures”, and he argues that Multiculturalism leads to injustice because it is an assault on values and valuation.

Never one to miss an opportunity naively to say that the other guy is confused, YouTube’s resident moral relativist, pyrrho314, immediately fired up his video effects panel and jumped in to defend “Multiculturalism” with the irrationalist’s favourite strategy: the smear. Viewing the video, it soon became clear enough to me that it was pyrrho314 who was confusing the issue…and that he was doing so intentionally in an attempt to say that qtronman was wrong without actually addressing any of qtronman’s points.

In his video, he first tries to marginalize qtronman by calling his characterization of multiculturalism “extreme”.

He then shifts into pure BBB (bullshit baffles brains) mode. He equates the concept of multiculturalism with the concept of cultural diversity, essentially that multiculturalism is merely a reference to people living in the same area but having some differing beliefs, ways of living, etc..

He then turns his focus to the issue of “equality”. He says that cultures are all “changing and dynamic” and that that is “one sense in which they are all equal”. This implies that New York society is equal to society in Darfur, because both are “changing and dynamic”.

Drifting in a stream of free associations, he says that multiculturalism is how “we’re ultimately going to achieve some individualism in this world” because ultimately “cultures break down and break down to the individual level” and “people have their own cultures…we can call those equal in that we don’t have to legislate one culture over another, because it’s not necessary”. Oy gevalt! Let me get this straight:

1. collectivism is the way to individualism because collectivism breaks down; and
2. if it is not necessary to legislate inequality, we can call the status quo equality

In an effort to deny Multiculturalism is founded on a completely non-judgmental philosophy, he then scrapes for some hazy middle ground: “You don’t need to judge a whole culture but you can judge parts and aspects of the culture”. He concludes by saying he thinks that qtronman is “misusing the concept of equality and, in the end, you’re mischaracterizing multiculturalism”.

Strong summation, for a singularly weak argument. But it gets worse.

Qtronman responded to pyrrho314 in a video that, understandably, begins with qtronman saying “…I don’t know what you’re arguing against”. And he astutely notes that pro-multiculturalists try to hide their anti-Western agenda by conflating the issues of multiculturalism and cultural diversity.

Enter the smear, in response, from pyrrho314: “…I’m not accepting your definition of multicultural”. Which is the same as saying: “I’m not prepared to deal with what you said about the concept you called Multiculturalism”. He continues: “To me, it looks like you’re judging multiculturalism as someone who believes that they’re invested in a particular culture”. This is tantamount to saying: “racist”.

In a feat of logical contradiction, he makes this statement: “Multiculturalism is…an American type of culture…I’m not even sure, if you’re American or Canadian, that you even have a single culture to hold onto because those are multicultures.” Well, which is it? Is Multiculturalism a single “type of culture”, or is it more than one culture, such that one cannot “hold onto” them?

Switch, now, to playing the victim, in an effort to make qtronman look like some sort of aggressor: “…and it feels to me that your attacking my multicultural attitude with your definition”.

He follows up with the idea that “cultures” created various technologies: computer technology in America, computer chips in Asia, algebra in the middle east. It never seems to occur to him that individual minds, not cultures, invent things. Alan Turing did not develop the Turing test because he was gay, or light-skinned, or British. He developed it because he was brilliant, mentally active, and willing to engage in strict logical thought.

Pyrrho314 then admits he is teaming with anger, but holding it back, and he asks qtronman to recognize, perhaps to credit him, for that. More self-victimization aimed at implying that qtronman is a bigot.

Pyrrho314 ends up by saying he hails from no particular culture and draws upon things from various cultures. He thereby implies that qtronman does not do so, which is a false and baseless claim.

In the end, it is apparent that Pyrrho314’s entire response to qtronman’s advocacy of making judgments about cultures is to falsely suggest that qtronman is a racist.

In the comments to pyrrho314’s video, I wrote:

pyrrho314, I’m having a hard time listening to this debate precisely because you and qtronman are using different definitions for “multicultural”. In Canada, where qtronman and myself live, multiculturalism refers to a state-funded, state-imposed cultural egalitarianism. The state literally tries to discourage “the American melting pot”, in favour of a “stew”. It’s a racist, tribalist, anti-individualist, and anti-American concept in Canada. And like qtronman says, it is founded implicitly on the rejection of the evaluation of any culture in any way. It is founded on a belief that “each culture is different, but no culture is better or worse than any other”. For intellectually dishonest and completely political reasons, Canada’s multiculturalism confounds race with culture: that way, those who dare to express any praise or condemnation about any culture can be labeled a racist.

In my view, the American melting pot is and was the right method to erase the cultural clashes that result when people from different places come to live in the same place. Everyone leaves behind the the traditional ways of the cultural tribe they leave behind; they come to America to drop the tribalist collectivism of old Europe, of Asia, of Africa, of South America etc, and to live as individuals: free to break with the traditions of the culture they left behind, to the extent they want to do so In contrast, Canada literally funds tribalism, giving people the financial means to set up a cultural museum, in which all of the old hatreds, prejudices, ignorances, etc. of old cultures can be kept alive so that collectivist, cultural traditions can trump change, individual differences, and independent thought. The result is such things as the recent project in Toronto for a system of Afrocentric schools: black teachers, black students, black curriculum, black traditions.

(see here here here and here)