The Cult of Multiculturalism: “Somebody …
The Cult of Multiculturalism: “Somebody eventually had to say it — and German chancellor Angela Merkel deserves credit for being the one who had the courage to say it out loud. Multiculturalism has “utterly failed.” [...]
“We kidded ourselves for a while,” Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could “live side by side” and “enjoy each other” has “failed, utterly failed.” [...]
The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today. [...]
It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked. This wasn’t multiculturalism. It was common sense.” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250190/cult-multiculturalism-thomas-sowell
Cf. The Evolution of Ethnocentrism “CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that in-group favoritism can be an undemanding yet powerful mechanism for supporting high levels of individually costly cooperation with only minimal cognitive requirements and in the absence of other, more complex mechanisms. This finding helps to explain how the observed predisposition toward in-group favoritism might have evolved and why such a predisposition might be easily triggered in situations where other social mechanisms for cooperation (institutions, reciprocity, etc.) are absent. Such a mechanism may have been derived from kin recognition systems or may have arisen separately. The model presented here does not study the process by which specific traits become salient in defining group distinctions, although the emergence of a predisposition to favor in-groups helps to explain why manipulating such differences is often a powerful political strategy (as demonstrated in the early 1990s by Slobodan Milosevic). We assume here that distinctions between groups are based on a single abstract trait, with only four available types. Future work might take account of the fact that group distinctions are socially constructed. Indeed, broadening the boundaries of what is perceived as the in-group represents one important policy approach to reducing ethnocentric behaviors. Our results also suggest several other policy implications worth further study. We have demonstrated that ethnocentrism can be an effective mechanism for supporting cooperation in the absence of such conditions as continuing interactions, well-developed institutions, and strong social norms. These conditions do often exist in society and may help to lower reliance on in-group favoritism to generate cooperation. Similarly, we show that the ability to discriminate based on group membership is especially helpful to cooperation in our model in more austere environments (e.g., when the individual cost of cooperation is high). Reducing the costs of cooperation (or increasing its benefits) might therefore reduce the value added of discriminatory behaviors. Finally, our model speaks to Putnam’s (2000) concepts of “bonding” and “bridging” capital, by demonstrating how easily ethnocentrism cre- ates “bonding” social capital within groups. Efforts to reduce discrimination might focus on how to create opportunities for creating “bridging” social capital between groups as well.” http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/Hammond-Ax_Ethno.pdf
