Multiculturalism movement mixes bowl of identity politics salad

By Mike Rosen

The multiculturalism movement is a cancer disguised as a cure. It claims that learning more about minorities would elevate them and improve national harmony, and opening our borders to people from other countries will enrich us as they combine their cultures with ours. Our public schools enthusiastically embraced this, deemphasizing reading, writing, and arithmetic to fill the vacuum with “social justice.” Colleges created new departments for ethnic studies, black studies, Latino studies, etc.

Multiculturalism isn’t innocent or apolitical. It was a planned early stage ― DEI was the next stage ― in the “fundamental transformation of America” (the goal proclaimed by President Obama) into a globalist socialist utopia. Radical left-wing academics who relentlessly denigrate our history by obsessing on our sins while ignoring our many more virtues also championed multiculturalism as a means to that end. (What nation’s history is without sin?) This strategy has been effective in the left’s indoctrination and recruitment of callow idealistic students.

Melting pot or salad bowl?

In practice, multiculturalism doesn’t lead to national harmony, just the opposite. It spawned identity politics, tribalism, divisiveness and has undermined national unity. Americans don’t need a hyphen to describe themselves. Nobody whose ancestors came from England 400 years ago calls himself an English-American today. Why would a black man whose Swedish grandfather became a U.S citizen in the 20th century be called African-American?

Our nation has traditionally been a “melting pot” where newcomers and their descendants assimilate into our culture. Fifth-generation Americans with Italian roots, for example, might call themselves Italian-Americans on some occasions but they speak English, are proud to be American, and may have ancestors who fought for the U.S. against Italy in World War II. The Left weaponizes multiculturalism to reject assimilation in order to divide our people. The Marxists among them deploy multiculturalism in the Leninist strategy of permanent revolution to overthrow capitalism.

Multiculturalists would replace our melting pot with a “salad bowl” of identity politics. But salads can become disharmonious. I prefer iceberg lettuce and discriminate against arugula which is better suited for grazing cows. Barbecue sauce is unwelcome in a Ceasar salad.

Diversity makes sense in an investment portfolio but can go way too far in a country. Europe has been devastated by a tsunami of immigrants, many of whom refuse to assimilate, especially Muslims. In France, Parisian suburbs like Seine-Saint Denis have effectively become separate Islamic societies where Sharia law has displaced French civil law and police are afraid to go. Denmark banned Muslim face coverings to crack down on the crime wave, has “No Ghetto” policies to prevent the growth of immigrant enclaves, and now aims at “zero migration.” Britain’s socialist Prime Minister Keir Starmer ― once an avowed multiculturalist ― recently declared that its experiment with open borders is turning the nation into an “island of strangers” with “forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.”

Borders matter

Countries have borders to protect their sovereignty, for national defense, and to block unwanted individuals. Historically, the U.S. has imposed limits to immigration allowances among countries to balance it out. Now, that’s diversity. Instead of America’s great advantage of a common language, multiculturalism taken to its ultimate destination would substitute a virtual Tower of Babel.

Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm, a Democrat before they turned radically left, was leery of multiculturalism warning that “diverse peoples worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other, that is when they’re not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.”

I’ve been to about 70 countries. I’m intrigued by their sights, people, governments, histories, cuisines, and cultures. I like some better than others, and some not at all. But I prefer our culture, system of government and economy, and I don’t want our culture to be overwhelmed by mass immigration. I favor assimilation. I’m not opposed to immigration. I am opposed to unlimited and illegal immigration, regardless of nationality or race. That’s a vital distinction Mexican-American columnist Rubin Navarette routinely ignores when he falsely labels as racists those who oppose illegal immigration ― especially if the illegals are Latinos.

All of the world is not wonderful. World citizenship is a delusion and a path to open borders. It would require a world government and a world military. The United Nations is a farce. Imagine the compromises America’s representative to a World Constitutional Convention would have to make to satisfy China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Our Constitution would be trashed.

And why do multiculturalists cheer when they’re told that whites will soon no longer be a majority in the U.S? Isn’t that racist?