the imaginative conservative logo

battle of hastings

Multiculturalism is a thorny topic. It is also a topic on which any truly rational discussion is very difficult. The problem is that many people equate criticism of multiculturalism with racism. Since nobody wants to be accused of racism (quite rightly), it is easier and safer to avoid talking about anything that might get one accused of it. This is, however, unhelpful in a world in which multiculturalism is often the very cause of much of the racism in society. If we wish to address the evil of racism, we must address its causes, one of which is a certain type of multiculturalism.Before we look at contemporary multiculturalism, it might be helpful to look at how it has impacted history, for better or worse.

Let’s begin with the Norman Conquest of England, the 950th anniversary of which we commemorate this year. For Hilaire Belloc, a dyed-in-the-wool Francophile, this had been a blessing for England, infusing English culture with a French influence which Belloc believed was beneficial. For J.R.R. Tolkien, however, an equally dyed-in-the-wool defender of Anglo-Saxondom, the Conquest had been an unmitigated disaster, bringing to an end a golden age of English culture, alive with great saints and great works of literature. For Belloc, the Conquest was the birth of true England; for Tolkien, it was the destruction of the Shire.

There is no doubt that the multicultural fusion of the two languages, Old English and Norman French, which happened over the following centuries, flowering into full bloom with Chaucer and reaching breathtaking heights with Shakespeare, has given us the English language that we love. Yet it came at the cost of Old English, which was killed in the process of the fusion, a loss that Tolkien and others would no doubt think was too high a price to pay.

native americansMoving onto thornier ground, we have the multiculturalism of the New World. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, the various tribes fought with each other and, in some cases, sacrificed their own children to their gods. After the arrival of the Europeans, the tribes fought with the newcomers, resenting their arrival, understandably enough, and struggled, ultimately unsuccessfully, to retain their own way of life. In this case, the mixing of two cultures did not result in a fusion but in the destruction of one culture by the imposition of the will of the other. In the language of the wild west of Hollywood’s invention, the town (or the continent) wasn’t big enough for the both of us. One had to make way for the other.

From the multicultural perspective, it might be said that things got better after this somewhat unfortunate start. Waves of immigrants from various cultures moved into the United States, threatening and ultimately supplanting the cultural hegemony of the WASPs. The story of the United States, from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, might be seen as the golden age of multiculturalism, the triumph of the so-called Melting Pot. The secret of its success, as G.K. Chesterton surmised, is that the melting pot was strong enough to withstand the heat and the friction caused by the mixing of the various cultures, enabling the various ethnic ingredients to melt and meld into a vaguely homogenized nation. The melting pot’s strength resided in the economic prosperity which the United States generated during this period and in the cultural unity that being “American” signified at the time. The pot was forged, therefore, by an alloy of material wealth and patriotic cohesion.

The success and ultimate viability of multiculturalism is, therefore, connected to the melting pot within which it exists. If the pot is made of too weak a material to withstand the heat generated by ethnic fusion it will itself melt, resulting in the anarchy that leads to violence and thence to the tyrannical restoration of ruthless “order.” If, on the other hand, it needs to be made of the hard and toxic metal known as totalitarium in order to prevent its melting, multiculturalism serves merely as the prerequisite to tyranny. In short, if the melting pot becomes too weak or too strong, it becomes a menace to human liberty and to the flourishing of authentic culture. This is the situation in which we find ourselves today, especially in Europe.

The pouring of a large number of Muslims into the secular melting pot of contemporary Europe has caused a cultural reaction that has raised the temperature of the pot to such a degree that it is in danger of melting. Indeed, there is the very real danger of a cultural meltdown of possibly unprecedented proportions.

crystal mosqueMuslims have refused to melt and meld into the secularist mud and muddle that surrounds them, and who can blame them? Preferring Mohammed to Mammon, the prophet of God, as they see it, to the god of profit, they demand sharia law, seeking to separate themselves from the oil of slippery relativism like acerbically acidic vinegar. Understood in this light, the efforts by the European Union to force its minions—i.e. its member states—to accept millions of new Muslims into the volatile mix must be seen as ill-advised, to say the least. Thankfully, it is seen as such by dissident nations, such as Hungary and Poland, who are fighting to resist the senseless situation that the European Union is trying to force upon them. In doing so, in daring to question the wisdom of this form of multiculturalism, the Hungarian and Polish people are being accused of racism and xenophobia. This is grossly and grotesquely unjust because their opposition is not based upon hatred of those of a different race or upon a fear of foreigners but on the desire to preserve their own culture from the radical relativism of the European Union and the radical islamisation that has plagued other European countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

Perhaps the best way of putting ourselves in the shoes of the Poles and Hungarians is to put ourselves in the shoes of the British, French, or Germans seventy years ago, at the time in which the islamisation of these countries began. Take Britain, for example. Back in 1948, with the passing of the British Nationality Act, which opened the doors of Britain to unprecedented levels of immigration, none could have guessed that, almost seventy years later, Islamic Fundamentalism would be widespread in the UK and that British-born Muslims would become homegrown terrorists who hate the country in which they were born. Were anyone to have suggested such a nightmare scenario at the time, he would have been dismissed as a deranged prophet of doom. Now that the nightmare has become a reality, there seems little that can be done. The Muslims, like the Normans of a near-millennium ago, are in the UK to stay, for better or worse. Unlike the Normans, however, they seem unlikely to assimilate. The tensions are, therefore, likely to beset British culture for generations to come. So be it. It makes little sense to shed too many tears over spilt milk, whether it was spilt at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 or with the passing of a disastrous act of Parliament in 1948. The real issue is not that the British have made the uncomfortable bed in which they are now doomed to lie but whether the Poles and Hungarians and other nations who have not suffered from such islamisation should be forced to follow suit? Why should those who have not made the perilous mistake be forced to follow the disastrous footsteps of those who have?

If we could turn the clock back to 1066, Belloc and Tolkien, and other men of good will, could argue whether England would be a better place had she averted the Norman Conquest. By contrast, who, in their right mind, would argue that Britain would have been better off had she not imported millions of largely anti-British Muslims into her midst, creating thereby an insoluble problem for perhaps centuries to come? If this is so, who, in their right mind, can blame Poland, Hungary, and others from learning from Britain’s mistake?

Books by Joseph Pearce may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore

 

Print Friendly
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
5 replies to this post
  1. Multiculturalism is simply a label we place on events that have occurred unceasingly since our ancestors struck out from their original ‘homeland’ By nature we are very mobile, and for various reasons,mostly economic,we sought reliable sources of food to sustain our tribes,including the hope of even better beyond the hill and into the next valley. Any contest of will to acquire same was bestowed on the most fit. After all, right was on the side of the greatest might.

    If we fast forward to more recent times, the sum of all the assimilations that have occurred in the past whether gradual or otherwise, were guided by the same process. Albeit, in a more complex and sophisticated manner befitting the cultural evolution that has occurred over the millennium.

    It seems to me the characteristic of this cultural evolution that stands out the most is the transformation from right to righteousness. In other words what we once described as economic necessity, and the ‘right’ to acquire the resources needed to feed our tribes, has changed. The ‘justification’ of our actions has acquired a mystical tone wherein we longer require this justification alone, but are entitled to our actions through a particular belief system. Religiosity has colored the multicultural landscape to the point where it has become the new justification for exclusion.

    To your point, Poland and Hungary have a perfect right to act in their own best interests regardless of the justification they use to found their policy of exclusion in this particular matter. Membership in the EU does not usurp the sovereign right of independent nation states. That said all membership has terms agreed to on investiture. Decisions that counter the intent explicit or otherwise come at a price, which obviously Poland and Hungary are prepared to accept. All of this to say, the actions of Poland and Hungary is beside the greater point that i believe needs to be made
    .
    The point is; Are we resigned to live in fear or are we willing to do the right thing. The migration of fellow human beings from one location to another out of economic necessity, indeed personal survival, is not new. Nor will similar events end anytime soon. Will this alter the current structure of the societies in question to some degree, of course.

    Respectfully I would submit that our greater calling is to choose charity over fear. We have a duty to help those who are in need. It is the price we pay as part of being human

  2. Two brief points:

    1) Poland has actually taken in hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war .

    2) Poland is not resisting a flood of Muslim migrants because none are coming. Poland is resisting German plans to build internment camps there and force-deport Muslims to Poland

  3. I would add that Poland has made a distinction between the type of refugees they are prepared to accept. The system of internment camps that Germany will set up is in part to serve their own best interests for sure. However, at the same time, member countries are expected to take in their share. Again Poland can elect not to participate, seeking assurances of security.

    Who can guarantee a measure of security that would be acceptable?

    I’m sure all parties can arrive at some accommodation in the interests of all refugees. My original point is that we need to ensure fear does not cloud our humanity and our ability to do the right thing

  4. I would note how preposterous it is for the Germans to suggest using Poland in the same manner that they did during the Holocaust. As for member countries taking their share, no country other than Poland has taken in so many Ukranian refugees. The EU apparently does not care about Christian war refugees but desires more Muslims.

    Hopefully AFD will win in Germany and Le Pen in France to reverse this trend and save the European Union from the multiculturalists who are destroying it with their radical agenda.

    Donald Trump winning the US election would help too.

    We all literally need a new Deal. Hopefully Trump can lead the West towards one.

  5. Peter,

    Aren’t Ukrainians slavs such as the Poles? It’s like comparing Canadians to Americans. There are differences, but very slight.

    Eastern Rite Ukrainian Greek-Catholics would fit very well in a Latin Rite Catholic Poland.

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: