Wednesday, March 29, 2006

The Right, The Family & Multicultural Paranoia

I’ve just been to yet another University debate about multiculturalism. Obviously, the usual points never fail to crop up, but I will only speak about two of them: the supposedly obvious failure of anything multicultural, and the lack of migrant integration. I shall start with the former. If I had a Maltese pound (obviously, we’re patriotic ain’t we?) for every time somebody used the Netherlands and France as obvious examples of multiculturalism’s supposed failure, I wouldn’t be writing this article. I would be kicking it on some tropical beach with a massive cocktail in hand.

Unfortunately I don’t get money for stupid arguments, so write a blog I must. I will not go into how conflict between different cultures is usually inspired by structural inequalities, nor would I go into the fact that race and culture are the easiest things around which one can mobilise people. I will only say: if these rightists viewed the slightest of conflict or dysfunction as undeniable proof that something is a complete failure, then we can proclaim the failure of everything from Juventus to the concept of the family. Using the same - pardon me as I use the word – logic, a couple of cases of divorce or separation should be enough to declare the concept of the family dead. Now separations in Malta, and divorce in the rest of the world (yes we’re not retarded civil-liberties-wise, we’re just special) do not amount to just a couple (pun semi-unintended); the number of dysfunctional families is massive, yet ironically enough, not only doesn’t the Right (arse holes) declare the death of the family, they claim that it is, along with the patria (tee-hee-hee), the bulwark of their ideology. Strikes as a little bit odd, doesn’t it? Their methodology (can you call it that?) is just plain retarded. Let’s change context, shall we? I get food poisoning from a restaurant, so obviously, restaurants are a bad idea. Duh! No other explanation possible. I’m telling you man, I went to a restaurant, I got food-poisoning. Isn’t it obvious? Restaurant = baaaaaaad. This pseudo-analysis is obviously flawed from its inception. I don’t think you need a genius to know that if you want to understand multiculturalism (or restaurants), you analyse multiculturalism (or restaurants), not potential conflicts (or food poisoning). But this is pretty basic no? I’m sure you don’t need private lessons from Einstein to figure this one out. So we’ll skip to the next point. Integration.

Now this is a bit tricky. How often have we heard that migrants don’t want to integrate but just want to form their own exclusive ghettos? You wouldn’t be blamed if you think that ghettos are the new penthouses. People are dying to live in them! And since detention centres are sporting 5 starts nowadays, you wouldn’t be wrong to assume that ghettos must be the bee’s knees. But that’s not really relevant so let’s get back on track. This integration business isn’t simple. Integration needs effort from both ways. It’s like a handshake. You can’t shake your hand in the air now can you? But once again the Rightists don’t get it. And neither do I get them, to tell you the truth. They whine about how immigrants form ghettos but they don’t want to integrate with them. They whine about them forming ghettos but they don’t want them next door. Makes no sense.

Through the type of speech that comes out from the mouths of the rightists, the immigrants are turned into a babaw. The babaw who comes here to steal your job, fuck your wife and take your seat on the bus, not to mention blot our pure white (haha) complexion! Consequently people fear them, which means that they would rather not live next to them. The stereotype feeds the discrimination which in turn results in landowners not wanting them as their tenants for such reasons as xenophobia and property value. So what happens when a block of flats is indeed ready to accept everybody? What do you think happens? The normal thing happens! People talk and before you know it those that have not been accepted elsewhere go to live where they are. The result? Ghettos galore. Integration is a handshake. Do you keep putting your hand out to people who have rejected your hand for countless times? I wouldn’t. And probably nobody would. But don’t worry about my absurdities. What the hell do I know? I’m just a radical leftist…

Ironically enough, when the ‘discussion’ at University ended, the organisers of the debate handed out free pizzas, offered to them by their sponsors. It was funny to see the anti-multiculturalists pigging out on the pizzas. What a sight to see! Stupid me. There I was thinking they’d refuse it and call for some bragoli and bigilla

11 Comments:

Blogger Jacques René Zammit said...

Did I tell you that I do not like radical leftists? :) And do not think that I did not notice the passing reference to you-know-who in your post....

naughty naughty

5:33 AM  
Blogger Peklectrick said...

Ma nafx x'qed tghid ta' (tee-hee-hee)...

5:40 AM  
Blogger Antoine Cassar said...

Prosit Patrrick. I really liked the handshake metaphor.

I went to a multicultural university in England and racism and integration were hardly a problem at all. When I finished my degree I went to another multiculturual university, this time in Spain, and racism and integration were not a problem there either.

How come? Just because they are universities?

Not exactly, it's not as if all university students are open-minded and tolerant. But in both places you could see the same chain: knowledge of the other leads to respect for the other, and respect for the other leads to empathy.

This is a very simplistic argument as I haven't gone into any of the psychological issues linked to racism and xenophobia, but I am convinced that the main culprit is ignorance. And ignorance sometimes stems from a refusal to look, listen and learn.

6:49 AM  
Blogger Andre said...

Netherlands and France as obvious examples of multiculturalism’s supposed failure

What they seem to (conveniently) forget to mention are those countries where multiculturalism has been a success.

11:45 AM  
Blogger david said...

Similar thoughts. I think you'll keep on finding the debate in Malta frustrating/weird/surreal. Check out my recent post 'Surreal' and this: http://lanzarotemaltabruxelles.blogspot.com/2005/11/after-paris.html

2:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What they seem to (conveniently) forget to mention are those countries where multiculturalism has been a success.

Which are?

2:24 PM  
Blogger Peklectrick said...

Which are all those places in the world, where people with different cultures live together without problems. Cultures have lived together without problems throughout history. The conflicts of cultures stems not from the fact that they are living together but from other sources.

2:44 AM  
Blogger Peklectrick said...

Oh, to add something else...

It's like you say that PN supporters and MLP supporters can never live together. There was a time when it felt like that but the conflicts were NOT the direct result of 'different' people living together but of so called 'different' people who percieve that their difference is something that ought to distinguish them from the threatening other.

2:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If cultures are compatible, multi-culturalism will work for some time but when it's not, it will simply lead to civil wars.

You cannot say MLP and PN people hold different cultures. I dont' think you used a good example there.

Multi-culturalism generally fails in both modern states (see how the Belgians wants to split the country in two - Flemish and the others) and undeveloped states (Rwanda genocide).

5:49 AM  
Blogger Peklectrick said...

The point was never that supporting PN or MLP ammounts to having a culture. The point is, when people percieve themselves as different and place alot of importance on that 'difference' anything can lead to conflict. It can be religion, it can be culture and it can be football support. It's a matter of identity. If one views themselves (in terms of identity) first as a man, then as a Maltese; in a fight between a Maltese woman and a foreign man, our guy would take the side of the foreign man. It's a simple argument. But it's a matter of how one percieves his own identity. If one thinks himself as first a Catholic, then as a PN supporter and then as a Maltese, he could side (in a conflict) with a British Catholic against a Maltese Protestant.

So yes conflict can arise out of different cultures. But the conflict arises not out of different cultures but out of others circumstances that can heighten such difference. As I said in my article, mobilising people around the nation and race is a fairly simple thing to do.

11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://sintezi.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html#7311231322973319197

1:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home