Hanson writes (and please read it all over at National Review):
Multiculturalism — as opposed to the notion of a multiracial society united by a single culture — has become an abject contradiction in the modern Western world. Romance for a culture in the abstract that one has rejected in the concrete makes little sense. Multiculturalists talk grandly of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, usually in contrast to the core values of the United States and Europe. Certainly, in terms of food, fashion, music, art, and architecture, the Western paradigm is enriched from other cultures. But the reason that millions cross the Mediterranean to Europe or the Rio Grande to the United States is for something more that transcends the periphery and involves fundamental values — consensual government, free-market capitalism, the freedom of the individual, religious tolerance, equality between the sexes, rights of dissent, and a society governed by rationalism divorced from religious stricture. Somehow that obvious message has now been abandoned, as Western hosts lost confidence in the very society that gives us the wealth and leisure to ignore or caricature its foundations. The result is that millions of immigrants flock to the West, enjoy its material security, and yet feel little need to bond with their adopted culture, given that their hosts themselves are ambiguous about what others desperately seek out.
A while back, I wrote:
I would suggest that it isn’t diversity that makes it more difficult to assimilate; rather it is the celebration of diversity and the elevation of it as a goal over all others, especially that of assimilation.
Over the past several decades, we have seen “diversity” become a primary goal for society, academia and the workplace without an iota of attention to actually blending that diversity into a unified America. We have actually encouraged people to maintain that same social and cultural segregation that is equivalent to the racial segregation that was struck down by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The American “progressive” members of government and society have heaped scorn on any attempt to critically discriminate and debate the compatibility and appropriateness of people or cultures to the American experiment by adopting a “who are we to judge” attitude. This attitude creates the illusion that all cultures are equally beneficial and should be added to the American melting pot resulting in a “Balkanization” of American society.
Hanson poses some very poignant questions:
- Why did the family of the Boston bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, even wish to come to Boston? If they really were in danger back home in the Islamic regions within Russia, why would members of the family return to the source of their supposed dangers?
- Why for that matter did Major Nidal Hasan, a Palestinian-American citizen whose family was welcomed into the United States from the war-torn West Bank, so detest his adopted country that he would kill 13 fellow Americans and injure 32 others rather than just return in disillusionment to the land of his forefathers?
- Why would Anwar al-Awlaki, another U.S. citizen, whose family was welcomed to the United States for sanctuary from the misery and violence of Yemen, grow to despise America and devote the latter part of his adult life to terrorizing the United States?
- The United Kingdom is currently reeling from the beheading of a British soldier by two British subjects whose fathers had fled from violence-prone Nigeria. Why did they not return to Nigeria, carve out new lives there, and find their roots?
Answers to these questions would clarify our issues with Islamic inspired terrorism. Unfortunately, we have a culture and a political elite that is so self-involved in political skullduggery in the quest for power to be bothered to even ask them. The fact is that they already know the answers but are afraid to acknowledge them out loud – because once spoken, they become real.