By Shelton A. GunaratneƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Before condemning multiculturalism as a failure because it is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-an anti-Western ideology that wallows in relativism and guilt,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ John B. Calvert (The Forum, Sunday, June 3, 2012) should have clarified whether hisobjection was based on the descriptive or the normative meaning of multiculturalism.

• In its descriptive sense, the term refers to the cultural diversity reflected in the population make-up of countries (India, United States, Brazil), cities (New York, Los Angeles, London), businesses, school districts, neighborhoods, and the like.

In the descriptive sense, India is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-racially, culturally, linguistically, ethnically and religiously the most diverse country in the worldƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Wikipedia). Indians speak 1,652 mother tongues. Although 80 percent of Indians are Hindus, India also accommodates the worldƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s third largest population of MuslimsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚the putative extremists that Calvert dislikes.

In the descriptive sense, theUnited States is another example of a cultural amalgam of diverse peoples. Continuous mass immigration was a feature of the U.S. economy and society since the first half of the 19th century.

• In its normative sense, the term refers to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can co-exist peacefully in a single country.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Therefore, in this sense, multiculturalism implies a “positive endorsement, even celebration, of communal diversityƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Wikipedia). ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Calvert confuses the reader by ignoring to make this distinction in his ardor to support the right-wing conservative thrust for assimilation (the melting pot concept), as opposed to the left-of-center advocacyƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  of multiculturalism (the salad bowl concept) that has failed to achieve its aims to (in CalvertƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s words) ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-uplift disadvantaged cultural groups, enrich the cultural tapestry and make us more tolerant.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Calvert blames multiculturalism for forcing ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-race-based admissions, degraded academic standards, censorship and a general regime of authoritarianism.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ However, he does not offer concrete evidence to prove any of these allegations.

Calvert fails to refer to the U.S. Office of Employment estimates that minorities comprise some 41 percent of the people entering the U.S. workforce. However, Calvert wants to educate the children of this vast workforce to follow a set of Western values and ideals that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-all might share.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  He implicitly wants the public schools to teach these common cultural values by reverting to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚brainwashingƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ thereby closing access to the childrenƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s own original cultures based on Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, Islamic or Hindu morals and ethics? Is Calvert advocating the practice of democracyr hypocrisy?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Calvert is right that the issue of multiculturalism deserves more attention in the context of the U.S. Census projection that by 2050, the Hispanic and Asian populations will both triple, the black population will almost double, and the white population will barely hold its own. However, in CalvertƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s thinking, Islam is the biggest threat to the values preserved by AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s white population. Calvert fails to mention that Islam is an Abrahamic religion (just like Judaism and Christianity) that approves the Ten Commandments and the Old Testament. All three Abrahamic religions believe in the same God.

As the United States becomes more ethnically and racially diverse, a consistent policy of multiculturalism would enable it to foster a prouder nation of diverse peoples stretching in a vast geographic area from Maine to Guam. Such a policy should embrace the slogan ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Diversity within Unity,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ which reflects the underlying truth of the universe/globe as a massive co-operative of diverse systems.

Calvert has selectively quoting three conservative politiciansƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚Sarkozy, Merkel and CameronƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚to support his case for assimilation. He could have quoted Hitler as well.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  During the imperial era, Britain and France, among other European countries, attempted to assimilate their colonies intoWestern culture through language, religion, education, etc., and by subtly practicing what Edward Said calls ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Orientalism.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ The current ethnic and ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-terroristƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ problems in Europe reflect the failure of the imperial policy of assimilation.

Calvert incorrectly asserts that multiculturalism started in Europe in the 1960s when Third World laborers were needed to offset a declining birth rate. Scholars say that as a philosophy, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-multiculturalism began as part of the pragmatism movement at the end of the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States, then as political and cultural pluralism at the turn of the twentiethƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Wikipedia). Calvert, however, incorrectly asserts that multiculturalism has a much shorter history simply to suit his purpose.

Calvert says, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Multiculturalism guarantees its own failure. It is an anti-Western ideology that wallows in relativism and guilt.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  He calls on public schools to teach ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-upholding ideals that all might share in common” instead of dwelling ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-on grievances and ethnic chauvinism.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  In other words, he wants public schools to resume the propagation of Western culture so as to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-assimilateƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ all alien cultures to the mainstream. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Perhaps, Calvert should ponder about the Daoist doctrine of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-unity within diversity.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ The inexorable Dao represents both unity and diversity. The interplay of the yin-yang mechanism engenders diversity within a system.

Buddhist philosophy also views the universe/globe as a giant system of subsystems that are in a state of constant flux (anicca).ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Both philosophies support the importance of diversity within the umbrella of unity.