If you accept a world where there are different cultures living side by side, conflict over land, resources, etc will eventually arise.
If you accept a world where there are different cultures living side by side, conflict over land…
mista. frank.

That happens even in a monoculture, hence that resolution of them is separated from whether you have one or multiple cultures involved.

When I speak of universal human rights, I mean it in the American sense, unalienable rights

So, not “universal” then. ;)

Even those rights are still separate from the concept/intent of the progressive’s “multiculturalism” — where no culture is inherently better or worse than any other. The fact is that all cultures are not equal in all contexts or even in limited contexts. Multiculturalism as a political philosophy, or a Progressive one, fails because it is founded on the notion that all cultures are equal when they are, in fact, not. There is a large chasm between people being equal under the law, people being “equal” in other contexts, and cultures being equal.

Fundamentally it seems to me the problem is really more of a belief that two things not being equal is somehow “bad”, or that culture A producing desirable results (such as a culture that promotes educational achievement resulting in more college educated people) but culture B doing the opposite means that culture B is somehow fully inferior to A, or morally poor. We see this concept play out in other arenas, so that should not be terribly surprising.

If we accept the facts of reality, that a culture will produce results and outcomes consistent with what is incentivizes or disincentivizes, and drop the “good/bad” labels we can stop having culture wars and let people adopt what cultural aspects which reflect what they want to achieve, rather than forcing a singular view upon them. History has shown that entire societies have done this quite effectively, and no society which perpetuates the myth that all cultures are “equally good” and backs that up with legal ramifications for straying from that has done well.

How one views rights, how one resolves conflict, and how one interacts with other cultures is done in whatever culture the person or society is operating under. But that does not change the underlying facts that cultures offer benefits and disadvantages, and that Multiculturalism is about enforcing a single “meta-culture” onto everyone rather than accepting the objective realities about the cultures it purports to equalize.

An historical review of the evolution of cultures in human history shows that there is much cross-pollination. Like Bruce Lee advised, “culture” has been someting people “take what is good, throw away what is bad, and add that which is uniquely your own” to when not prevented from doing so by government force. Multiculturalism, however, is pressing against that. Today that is manifesting as “cultural ‘appropriation’” being “bad”, and in the PC movement of not being allowed to point out the negative aspects of a given culture. Both of which are fundamentally an attempt at imposition of a culture. Unless this manufactured culture can demonstrate objective real-world improvements that significantly outweigh the existing cultures and practice of adopting piecemeal from other cultures what works, it will continue to fail.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Bill Anderson’s story.