Anti-Multiculturalism
Note: This essay was originally written as an English journal in response to the common idea at my school that "we need to be more diverse," which was intensified by the recent presentation for "Black History Month."
For residence life education last Tuesday, all the students in the school were required to attend a program on "Black History Month." Now, I do not necessarily reject the idea of "Black History Month," as long as it focuses on just that, history. However, "Black History Month" has turned into a pseudo-racism. It consists of pushing the *culture* of one group as the *best.*
The program from Tuesday night included a song called the "Black National Anthem." I was so appaled by this that I nearly refused to stand, let alone sing as they suggested. It is extremely counter-productive to create a song like this--that is, if getting rid of racism is the multicuturalists' goal. Creating a "Black National Anthem" only serves to re-draw the race line. Why is the Star-Spangled Banner not sufficient? It is only if black-Americans are somehow *different* from other Americans that they would need their own anthem. In Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the cahracter Manuel says: "[America] is mixed-up place another way; they care about skin color--by making point of how much they don't care." This is the problem in a nutshell.
From an individualistic standpoint, "Black History Month" makes no sense whatsoever. Whether grouping people by race, by job, by class, etc. it is just an attempt to define people as a collective and not as individuals. In a society of individuals, it doesn't matter to an employer if someone is black, red, or blue, as long as they can do their job well. This is because if the idea that people are individuals is accepted, then it doesn't matter what *most people* in a particular race do. It doesn't matter what *any* people in a particular race do. Each person is judged seprately. Multiculturalism is seeking to define members of a race by some sort of gross generalization. Isn't saying "I'm black and I'm proud," or "I'm Asian and I'm proud," just like saying "I'm (insert race here) and it matters?" Does it?
I wonder how strict the laws are. Wouldn't it be fun to start a school where on the application, in the *race* section, there was a choice with "race doesn't matter." Then everyone who checked anything other than "race doesn't matter" would get rejected immeadiately. I wonder how many lawsuits I would get on *racist* grounds. This is my position on race: I don't want to know because I don't care. It makes me angry when people go out of their way to tell me what race they are and what that race has done. It has nothing to do with that particular person, and so I couldn't care less. I care about individuals, not collectives. Don't tell me what race you are. I don't care. A communist can say he is an American just as easily as an Objectivist can. It doesn't mean anything. Ideas matter. I care about peoples' ideas, not their skin color. Multiculturalism just happens to be an idea that I hate.
Note: re-posted from my old OO.net blog
For residence life education last Tuesday, all the students in the school were required to attend a program on "Black History Month." Now, I do not necessarily reject the idea of "Black History Month," as long as it focuses on just that, history. However, "Black History Month" has turned into a pseudo-racism. It consists of pushing the *culture* of one group as the *best.*
The program from Tuesday night included a song called the "Black National Anthem." I was so appaled by this that I nearly refused to stand, let alone sing as they suggested. It is extremely counter-productive to create a song like this--that is, if getting rid of racism is the multicuturalists' goal. Creating a "Black National Anthem" only serves to re-draw the race line. Why is the Star-Spangled Banner not sufficient? It is only if black-Americans are somehow *different* from other Americans that they would need their own anthem. In Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the cahracter Manuel says: "[America] is mixed-up place another way; they care about skin color--by making point of how much they don't care." This is the problem in a nutshell.
From an individualistic standpoint, "Black History Month" makes no sense whatsoever. Whether grouping people by race, by job, by class, etc. it is just an attempt to define people as a collective and not as individuals. In a society of individuals, it doesn't matter to an employer if someone is black, red, or blue, as long as they can do their job well. This is because if the idea that people are individuals is accepted, then it doesn't matter what *most people* in a particular race do. It doesn't matter what *any* people in a particular race do. Each person is judged seprately. Multiculturalism is seeking to define members of a race by some sort of gross generalization. Isn't saying "I'm black and I'm proud," or "I'm Asian and I'm proud," just like saying "I'm (insert race here) and it matters?" Does it?
I wonder how strict the laws are. Wouldn't it be fun to start a school where on the application, in the *race* section, there was a choice with "race doesn't matter." Then everyone who checked anything other than "race doesn't matter" would get rejected immeadiately. I wonder how many lawsuits I would get on *racist* grounds. This is my position on race: I don't want to know because I don't care. It makes me angry when people go out of their way to tell me what race they are and what that race has done. It has nothing to do with that particular person, and so I couldn't care less. I care about individuals, not collectives. Don't tell me what race you are. I don't care. A communist can say he is an American just as easily as an Objectivist can. It doesn't mean anything. Ideas matter. I care about peoples' ideas, not their skin color. Multiculturalism just happens to be an idea that I hate.
Note: re-posted from my old OO.net blog