Maybe my algorithm suddenly prefers the alt-right corner of the internet. If so, it could mean I’m becoming a fascist white supremacist, or it could mean the noise being made of this particular flavor has gotten more prominent. And my question is why.
“They are like a virus, they spread, destroying everything in their path.”
“It’s an invasive species. We will have to think of measures to save our countries and white race.”
“Blacks: fastest growing demographic in the world. White nations keep sending food and medical aid to Africa which only makes them breed faster.”
“This is biological warfare.”
These are actual quotes I’ve seen from various social media platforms. I’m aware that these aren’t the thoughts of the majority, but they have gotten louder in public discourse.
I don't want to call them "racists" (whether or not they are is another discussion) because the term has become a catch-all for anti-multiethnic opinions. It is too uni-dimensional and non-nuanced to be helpful.
My goal with this essay is to understand them. So here's why I think this anti-multiculturalism sentiment is unsurprising — and maybe even empathizable.
The Return of the Ethnic Devil
I thought of adding a content warning here for racist themes, but I’m not that type of person. I won’t shy away from presenting things as they are. So consider this paragraph my unapologetic road sign.
Remember these racial caricatures from the 1800s?
“The Coming Man” in 1881, a year before the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
“A Warning. Get Back! We Will not Stand It” in 1898
I’m not bringing these up to hold a burden of guilt over Americans. I’m making an observation — because here’s a modern-day, AI-generated image I came across recently:
There’s an obvious sexual undertone in this one, but it’s an undertone that has always been present in this flavor of racial rhetoric.
Again, I want to be clear that this isn’t the sentiment of the majority. But it’s a voice that has gained volume in the months leading up to the presidential election.
How we got here and why it's not surprising
We must first understand that every cultural movement or prevalent sentiment is a reaction to something. Just as nature always tends toward equilibrium, so the flow of human cultures is always in search of counterbalance. (I happen to think that equilibrium cannot be maintained, if ever found, in human societies due to the nature of fringe minorities).
The struggle between Order and Chaos is a fundamental truth of the cosmos. Excess order follows excess chaos in a cycle as constant as the crests and troughs of the sea.
So what is anti-multiculturalism a response to? Answer: wokeness.
The majority has grown tired of the diversity and inclusion propaganda in the West. And for good reason. It first started with "compassion for the oppressed," then it took the form of shaming anything that favors the majority, and evolved into diversity hires. We are now seeing the effects, including the breakdown of institutional integrity.
Multiculturalism became the face of the movement that disrupted society for the worse.
And what happens when people's lives are disrupted for something they don't believe in? They take the position of the other extreme.
Understand, it is not the appreciation of other cultures that these people are truly against. Ask them in 2012 before the craziness and I am sure they would be in support of intercultural appreciation and education.
But also understand that the average American outside of the cities and suburbs do not have consistent encounters with non-Western cultures, often living hours away from the nearest Chinatown or Hispanic community. Imagine how disrupted they must be to suddenly see lots of third-world people in their towns, transforming the atmosphere seemingly overnight. And it doesn't help that many of these people aren't exactly upstanding citizens.
This sudden change triggered the immune-response reaction in the human psyche that pushed it to the opposite extreme in an attempt to maintain a sense of control. And I don't blame them.
Recall the quotes at the beginning of this essay. “Virus.” “Invasive species.” “Breed.” “Biological warfare.” This is a very specific language. It’s not human. It’s biological, ecological, primal.
They no longer see actual human beings, but caricatures of the “other.” To them, "legal" and "illegal" are now irrelevant terms — "immigrants" are one and the same.
I don’t believe they are truly against other cultures. They are reacting against the face of the movement that threatens to change the world as they know it. It just happened to be a face with a darker shade of melanin, wrapped in a sari or turban, and greets you with 你好.
As a legal alien myself, it is unfortunate that this is the case. I wish I wasn't represented or associated in this way. But we can't choose everything.
The illusion of cultural purity
A phrase that comes up often by the anti-multiculturalists is "purity of culture." It's part of a trend I'm seeing in this sentiment. They are destroying our culture. It is corrupting our culture. They are replacing our culture. We must preserve our culture.
This is the language of the immune-response system.
As I thought about it more, I wondered if there is such a thing as cultural purity. What makes a culture "pure"? Is bull riding "pure" American culture? Is ancestral worship "pure" Chinese, Korean, or Japanese culture? Is farming potatoes "pure" Scottish culture?
Trace any aspect of culture back far enough and you'll find a cultural blend of some kind. Almost everything originated somewhere else, adopted and transformed in the new context, and ultimately identified with it. In the grand scheme of things, cultural purity is an illusion.
But it's an illusion that makes sense in an individual's own view of the world. Even if a piece of culture has been around for only a century, it is all someone has ever known. It is identified with a constructed category. And to humans, generally, those categories must be preserved.
There are aspects of Chinese culture that I feel are "pure" and I want to preserve them. If a group of people threaten to take that away, to change the world as I know it, I would react negatively. It's a self-preservation tactic rooted in our reptilian brains.
So I understand the sentiment, and even empathize with it, though I am aware of how narrow, one-dimensional, and primal its perspective is. It's part of being human. I just hope that we can cultivate an environment where no one is cornered into their survival instincts so that they may be more open to the positive aspects of their global neighbors' cultures.
Should cultures be preserved or kept "pure"?
Why do some people prefer multiculturalism and others don't? Like for many things, it has to do with exposure. But even deeper than that, it has to do with impressions.
I may have lots of exposure to a particular culture, but if my impression of its people is that they are a bunch of thieves, bigots, and drug addicts, I would be incredibly unlikely to be open to any sort of cultural assimilation.
This is especially potent in the age of the internet, where you can construct an entire view of an ethnic group without ever having met an individual from that group.
Stepping out of the instinctual reaction, should cultures even be preserved?
My answer, of course, is more complicated than a simple yes or no.
Culture will inevitably change, so nothing can be kept "pure." At the same time, we have the ability to preserve the things that we deem worth keeping, and we must choose them wisely. A too-rigid preservation of all things traditional is tyrannical, blinding us to things that need to change. A too-fluid acceptance and adoption of all things new is foolish and immature, leaving us unstable and without identity.
So what should be kept, and what should be adopted (or at least appreciated)? The ultimate answer, in my opinion, is: the things that celebrate what is good.
Does it promote community in its best form? Keep it. Does it honor the old and wise? Keep it. Does it embody principles that elevate us to our best selves? Keep it.
Does another culture acknowledge something important that yours overlook? Adopt it. Does it have a unique perspective that enhances your view of the world? Adopt it. Or is there an aspect of it that ignores something sacred, like human rights? Leave that behind.
Understand that the drive to preserve one's culture is tied to one's identity, which is arguably the most sacred construction of the human psyche. So sacred, in fact, that we will kill to protect it.
So rather than calling these "anti-multiculturalists" racists, 1) empathize with their instinct of self-protection, 2) support their desire to preserve what is good about their own culture, and 3) gently open their eyes to the nuances of cultural development, to what is most important, and that we are in fact fighting for the same thing, though our ideas of how to do so may conflict.
Stay purposeful.
– Nathanael
|
Know someone who will enjoy this essay too? Share it with them!
|
Other essays you might like
