I was planning to quote from an earlier post about multiculturalism after some reader questions, but I think it's easier to replicate the whole thing. The purpose: to clarify when multicultralism works and when it doesn't.

The issue of multi-culturalism has been on the frontpages for quite a while and in a lenghty piece last year, I explained what was wrong with the left-liberal inclination to translate the term into cultural relativism:

As politically incorrect as it may often seem these days, there is nothing wrong with fulfilling the basic human need to identify with and celebrate a culture. It strengthens the individual and allows it to interact with other cultures in a confident manner. Cultural relativism negates that basic human premise and in view of the fact that other cultures practice the very opposite of that relativism it may endanger and threaten the “relativist” culture with extinction, especially when demographics play a part.

Yet at heart I am a staunch multi-culturalist, but to date have not really invested time into describing what the term actually should mean. Victor Davis Hanson in a very interesting interview comes very close to nailing down what it should stand for:

The very affluent, mostly white, liberal people who use it don't actually want the police in their neighborhood to have the culture of Mexican officers. They don't want to be treated with the same medical protocols that prevail in China. They don't want their daughters to have clitorectomies as in Sudan. So what do they mean with this idea of a salad bowl of culture?

What they really mean is they want a core culture that is Western, enhanced by exotica on the periphery, such as fashion, food, literature, and movies. That's a very different concept from multiculturalism. What we have to agree on is one culture, one language, one notion of what the law is, respect for private property, faith in democracy, capitalism, a transparent society, free speech. And those things are pretty much confined to those countries that are Western or Western-inspired.

We continue to speak Dutch at home to the kids, but we're all sufficiently aware that mastering the English language is a necessary tool for survival outside the house. There's no harm in enjoying your own culture while adhering to the values and adapting to the norms of the society you live in.

It seems to be the case that in the traditional Anglo-Saxon immigration countries (USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) all the values Hanson is talking about have more or less thrived while ethnic groups from all over the world generally assimilated without much problems. And that I see all around me with ambitious Chinese, Iranians, Japanese and Peruvians who are all proud of their culture master English and participate as loyal citizens in a new world to improve their well-being. Their presence is a good thing and our lives would be so much duller without their unique cultural input.

The one place where this model has not worked is in Europe where the existing political culture and the socio-cultural status of the immigrants have created a potentially toxic mix that threatens the survival of the old continent itself.

Postscript: The problem for Europe is that certain segments of the Muslim population (I have before tried to make the distinction between for instance Turks and Moroccans, no broad brush here) adhere to an identity that firmly rejects the culture and core beliefs of the host nation.

The bottom line, there’s nothing wrong with cultural individuality, but it should always be subject to the uniformity of the law. And as it happens, it is the most liberal, most inclusive law ever known to humanity. To enjoy its benefits you will have to live up to its principles.