Why the Liberal Elite is NOT Bothered by Multi-Culturalism.

why are so many liberal elites not bothered by multiculturalism? by multiculturalism, i don't mean multi-racialism where people of many backgrounds melt into a unified cultural identity and set of values. i mean a condition where the concept of unified or mainstream culture is disdained in favor of a mosaic of many cultures where each of them are supposed to be equal to the other. there are leftists who support this concept in bad faith in order to cause and spread social havoc which they hope to exploit. indeed, according to this kind of left-multi-culturalism, all cultures are okay except the white 'eurocentric' kind. so, all cultures must unite against white 'eurocentrism'. this is really multi-radicalism, not multi-culturalism. indeed, women and gays are often included among the 'victim cultures'. so, if you're a white woman or white homo, you have the priviilege and honor of joining with the 'oppressed' people against white male patriarchy.
there is also tribal-multi-culturalism, a notion embraced by racial and ethnic demagogues of every cultural community. though white nationalism or tribalism is not allowed in respectable society, tribalism among non-whites--black nationalists or afrocentrists, hispanic nationalists, islamicists, asiatic nationalists, etc--is tolerated under multiculturalism. liberal multiculturalists don't like this aspect of multiculturalism. and, leftist multiculturalists support this state of affairs only in the short-run, just as bolsheviks supported anti-russian tribalisms in the russian empire as a means of overthrowing the tsarist and then the nationalist regime. bolsheviks didn't respect muslims in the border areas of the russian empire but only used them as a leverage against the central government. once the bolsheviks took power, they were far more merciless in forcing soviet policies and ideology upon the non-russians.
leftist multiculturalism is the led by and is the dream of white radicals, mainly jews.
tribal-multiculturalism is led by leaders of the non-white ethnic communities. a muslim multiculturalist uses multiculturalism to set up an islamic community in the US, not to 'celebrate diversity'. indeed, tribal multiculturalism uses american or european freedoms in order to erect barriers between itself and rest of society. such people respect multiculturalism only to the extent that it empowers them to create and maintain a world of their own; they are NOT interested in tolerating or accepting other cultures.
and leftist multiculturalism supports multiculturalism essentially as a political weapon against 'white dominated society'. other than the more anthropologically inclined, there is really no great interest among leftist multiculturalists in the cultures of different peoples. what's appealing about many cultures is how they may be exploited politically to cause social dissenssion and crisis.

but, there is a group that may called liberal multiculturalists. they are both the most sane and the most naive of the multiculturalists . they are motivated by good faith but blind. they are essentially cosmopolitans and individualists. they understand multiculturalism as individuals of various communities mingling with, learning from, being curious about, tolerant of, and welcoming of one another. as such, it may not even qualify as a real multiculturalism which emphasizes the collective over the individual. under multiculturalism, you always have a hyphen before the nationally defined noun. so, you are an african-american, arab-american, mexican-american, asian-american, etc, etc. and that cultural label is supposed to define you from inside and outside. you are supposed to define yourself as a ___-american and expected to be defined as such. to be sure, in a positive way and not in a prejudicial or chauvanistic way, but your cultural or ethnic background is supposed to matter a great deal. someone who says, 'i'm just an individual, a citizen of the world' would be eyed with suspicion--as someone led to loathe his own background or naive enough to think a person can have an identity outside history and culture.
still, liberal multiculturalism has too much individualism and cosmpolitanism at its core to really qualify as multiculturalism as we know it. and, for this reason, the debate on multiculturalism gets confused. because there are three multiculturalisms, when one is criticized many think all three are being criticized. suppose someone condemns leftist multiculturalism as politically radical and hateful; there will be liberal multiculturalists who will then mistakenly think that cosmopolitanism itself is being attacked when nothing of the kind is the case.
we can be anti-multiculturalist without being anti-multicultural. multiculturality is a fact of life of any nation. a school that has kids from many ethnic background is multicultural. when it tries to turn this diversity into political consciousness and ethnic allegiances, then it is multicultural-IST.
similar, being national isn't the same as being nationalist. being a member of a nation is to have a national identity. nationalism, on the other hand, is an overt attempt to turn national identity into a potentially dangerous political consciousness.
in this sense, US was always multicultural. yet until relatively recently, there was no overt attempt to politicize this multi-facetedness. instead, people were given the freedom to practice their cultures as long as such didn't violate the principles of american laws and values. in time, it was hoped that people of different backgrounds would come together and create a new unified america.
the emphasis was on unity and togetherness. while differences were tolerated and even, at times, celebrated, racial or ethnic groups were not encouraged to fixate on their cultural differences. organically and gradually, it was hoped that americans would form a new, more or less unified and common culture. in contrast, multiculturalism cannot allow multicultural conditions to develop organically. rather, it wants us to politically manipulate, exploit, and harness it for radical or tribal means. even this aspect of multiculturalism is nothing new as there have been mini-nationalist movements in the US such as that of marcus garvey. but, that was at the fringe of american cultural and political life. now, such may be in the mainstream.

to be sure, not all anti-multiculturalisms are alike. some attack multiculturalism from the position of cosmpolitanism and individualism. in this group, there are liberal and conservative--often libertarian--anti-multiculturalists.
other people attack multiculturalism as harmful to national unity and sense of common values. there are liberals and conservatives in this group too--samuel hungtington and arthur schlesinger.
and, some attack multiculturalism from the perspective of white nationalism or christianism; this is partly because white nationalism, christianism, or eurocentrism is one cultural or national outlook that is banned by multiculturalism. white nationalists don't care for cosmpolitanism nor for national unity; they don't wanna unite with non-whites nor care much for mingling with the peoples of the world. they wanna a world of their own, just like islamicists and black nationalists led by the likes of farrakhan.

so, unless we better identify the nature of the debate, multiculturalism will always confuse us. a cosmopolitan individualist could be attacking multiculturalism for the latter's tribalism, but someone may see it as an attack by a white supremacist on people of different races and cultures. indeed, there is even conflict within the multiculturalist camp. read 'the nation' and you come across left multiculturalists decrying the impact of tribal multiculturalists. and there are afrocentrists who despise white lefists as much as white rightists. and, there are mexican-american tribal multiculturalists who are at odds with african-american multiculturalists or with asian-american multi-culturalists. and, there are jewish-american multiculturalists who are at odds with muslim-american multiculturalists.
and, some groups exhibit more of one kind of multiculturalism than the others. generally, more educated a cultural or ethnic group tends to be, there will be more cosmpolitan multiculturalists than tribal multiculturalists. whites are not allowed to be tribal multiculturalists cuz any kind of political identity of whiteness is deemed as 'racist'. so, whites can only opt for left-multiculturalism or cosmopolitan multiculturalism. indeed, one may say harold bloom is a cosmopolitan multiculturalist in that he's interested in the cultures and literatures of all peoples. and, he's at odds with the leftist multiculturalists in the academia who wanna use culture merely as means of radicalization and culture wars.
to be sure, some whites can join in a kind of white-dominated tribal multiculturalism if they adopt as their main identity either homosexuality or womanhood. a white homo or white feminist can qualify as a victim of white male patriarchy and/or homphobia.
i suppose in times to come that some clever white pagans will also claim victimhood at the hands of christians. as such, we might have wiccan tribal multiculturalist nationalism.

anyway, why are so many liberals who are committed cosmopolitans and individualists so infatuated with multiculturalists? the answer is in cosmopolitanism and individualism itself. IF one is foremost a cosmopolitan individualist--and one who sees other people as being the same way--, then cultures and different ethnic groups are not threatening. cultures exist only to be sampled, tasted, experimented, studied. cultures don't exist as a bloc of political and social reality.
if one is rich, educated, privileged, and can afford much freedom, he or she feels above cultures, above ethnicity, above nationality. call it being aloof or being conceited. such people don't confront culture and people as they are but only as facades, as a travelogue or reading material.
when cultures are understood this way, none of them is threatening, dangerous, or worth getting alarmed about. islam doesn't mean 1.2 billion muslims and their intolerant ways; it means fine architecture, arabesque patterns, middle east cuisine, arabic poetry, syrian music, iranian cinema, etc. so, liberal multiculturalists think multiculturalism simply means more cultures to sample, to consume, to enjoy, and to ponder in literary journals. indeed, from an academic angle, aztec culture would mainly mean artwork, architecture, food, music, etc, not its bloody customs and sick values and warmongering ways.
and, if this is the essence of multiculturalism and if everyone can live the life of an aloof privileged individual, it wouldn't be so bad.
but, 99% of culturedom isn't about art, music, dress, etc. the essence of any culture is its identity, its passions, its prejudices, its agendas, its values, and its distrust of others. in other words, a traveling show of mexican arts in museums across america is not the same thing as bringing in several million mexicans. indeed, the majority of mexicans know little about their own artistic or literary tradition. many are barely literate. for most of them, mexican culture means mexican pride, mexican prejudice, mexican distrust, mexican nationalism, mexican chauvanism, mexican resentment, etc. while rich liberal multiculturalists merely sample the best of different cultures, the masses of new arrivals in the US have no such awareness nor interest in such matters. indeed, a liberal multiculturalist in the US who had regularly read literary journals will almost certainly have a better knowledge of chinese history and culture than most chinese immigrants who come to the US. for your average chinese immigrant, being chinese means being proud, resentful, chauvanistic, prejudiced, suspicious, etc.
same thing with italian-americans. how many of italian-american immigrants studied latin, read decameron or virgil, knew anything much about the romans or about the ruins around their home village? for most of them, being italian meant more power and clout to italians, serving the tribal interests of italians or italian-americans.
indeed, this is true of americans as well. how many americans really know or care much about their own history, heritage, literature, music, etc? indeed, how many americans even know or care much about first half of the 20th century? for most americans, american culture is a set of american interests, prejudices, social rituals, commonly shared symbolism, and so on. indeed, a french or japanese historian of america knows more about american high culture than americans.
but, it would be foolish for the french or japanese scholar to mistake most of american with american high culture. most of russia was not dostoyevsky and tchaikovsky. and most of america is not william faulkner and william james. most americans never read faulkner and most never heard of william james.
suppose a million americans were to emigrate to france, japan, or sweden. the educated liberal elites in those nations who understand america mainly thru its high culture and arts may think they are welcoming the culture of mark twain, herman melville, walt whitman, henry james, duke ellington, orson welles, aaron copland, etc.
more likely, they will get a mass of people whose idea of america is nascar, tv sitcom, apple pie, gun culture, flag waving, god and country, gangsta rap, and so on. american people are not the same as american high culture.
the problem with liberals is they are into high or serious culture. there is nothing with this perse but when this view extends to the culture or nation as a whole, liberals often mistake the minor for the major. for example, great russian works of art may tell us something about the russian soul. problem is it's essentially a myth created by high artists. REAL russians are people with their own prejudices, most of them petty, self-serving, and tribal. and in this regard, they are same as most other peoples. to be sure, some peoples are more educated, sophisticated, and cosmopolitian than others, but this is largely limited to rich european nations. but, even these so-called 'enlightened' and 'progressive' europeans are hopelessly provincial, arrogant, and self-centered despite, or especially because, of their conceits. oftentimes, they project their highfalutin sense of what is right on everyone else. for example, they are such committed anti-racists and universalists that they impose their 'goodwill' on african when, in fact, the reality of africa defies all european assumptions, no matter how well-meaning. european progressivism is often so naive, pompous, morally arrogant and guilt-ridden at the same time, and self-righteous that amount to little than intellectual pretension and moral imperialism.

people are much more and much less than the high cultures they are associated with. we may marvel at the ancient culture of egypt, so the educated amongst us may think that allowing a million egyptians to the US will mean welcoming the glorious culture of the pharaohs and such. but, in fact, 99.9% of the immigrants will not be 'men of culture' but cultural bloc of pigheaded louts. while liberal americans rub shoulders with the best of the world, ordinary americans have to rub shoulders with the ordinary people from rest of the world. and, many of these ordinary people are truly backward, distrustful, hostile, tribal, and resentful. this is why immigration policy must be gradual enough to allow for the arrivals to weave into the mainstream fabric of society. when too many arrive in huge numbers and at a time when the idea of national identity and unity are dismissed by the media and academic elites as 'racist', there is much trouble ahead. a huge number of blacks were brought to the american south but they were forced to assimilate to american culture. if all those people were allowed to preserve their african tribal identity, much of the american south would today be like africa--torn apart by tribal warfare. in the late 19th and early 20th century, great many europeans arrived in america. but, thankfully, there was a strong and confident american culture and identity which were promoted by the elites in media and academia--as yet not dominated by liberal jews. so, immigrants were pressured to adopt american identity as their main identity. also, as they were mostly white, they could easily melt into the mainstream and be, more or less, indistinguishable from the native white americans.
today, many arrivals are non-white and their separateness will always be apparent to themselves and to others. also, liberal and leftwing jews dominate the media and academia and often have radical agendas to cause social crisis and havoc.
and, multiculturalism encourages many new arrivals not to assimilate fully into mainstream society.
also, white america no longer has confidence in itself. white america lamely imitates blacks and obediently listens to liberal and leftist jews.

anyway, we must not make the same mistake that liberals made. for example, ethiopian high culture is NOT the ethiopian people. if you bring in a million ethiopians into this country, you will not get a million representatives of the best and the noblest of ethiopia. you will get a million ethiopians without job skills, with nationalist resentment, with social distrust, etc.
privileged white liberals can turn a blind eye to the real social reality cuz they move about in circles where they meet only the higher and finer representatives of the other culture. they will meet some ethiopian scholar at some cultural gathering. for the white liberal, multiculturalism will seem as little more than sharing polite company with educated and cultural people from all over the globe. and, i'm sure this is fun. but, multiculturalism at the demographic level is something entirely different. most people of any country do not care for nor know much about high culture. for them, culture simply means tribal loyalty, social unity, national prejudices, political conflict.
indeed, liberals had the same problem during the cold war. they would go to the USSR and talk with scholars, artists, and such people who were, more or less, charming, erudite, thoughtful, and relatively free. so, american liberals asked why does the US have such as an antagonistic stance against such nice people? well, it wasn't the russian intellectuals and artists in the USSR that the US was worried about but the communist leadership, ideology, and the vast armies positioned across the borders of the iron curtain. for some reason, all that reality was blind to many american liberals. as far as they were concerned, the russians were only reacting to OUR paranoia, our warmongering, our aggression. it was all up to us to be accepting of the USSR, not the other way around.

liberals would learn a thing or two if they left their privileged spheres and lived at the common-folks level in many american cities. they will learn that demographic multiculturalism is a different thing than cosmpolitan multiculturalism. multiculturalism of socio-cultural identity is not the same as multiculturalism of high art or culture. to be sure, many liberals are not rich nor privileged, but as bohemian types their eyes are set on the world of high culture and privilege and blind to the tribal mentalities around them. suppose there is a very pigheaded mexican-american or vietnamese-american community that care zero for art and culture but only for money, political power, and social clout.
the dumb bohemian liberal will go to some vietnamese noodle shop or some mexican taqueria, eat some 'exotic' food, and think think this is the real significance of multiculturalism--having the privilege of sampling different kinds of foods.
similarly, many white liberals were blind to the lunacy and madness of black communities cuz all they cared for was blues or jazz. as intellectuals, bohemians, or artsy-fartsers, they ignored the troubling social reality while fooling themselves that some good music or food was the essence of what that community represented. this is rather like ignoring the reality of nazi germany cuz one really digs the music of richard strauss, or missing the point of 'triumph of the will' because it's so brilliantly made. liberals see the style but not the substance.

at an international film festival, movies from all over the world share the same screening rooms. and visitors from all over may rub shoulder and engage in polite chatter. but, people are not movies. and most people are not aloof intellectuals, artists, or some such. and reality is not contained and/or controllable like works of art.
most people don't care about high culture or literary journals or ideas. for most people, culture is social identity, us-agaisnt-them, 'our interests', etc. the high culture of a nation may be 'liberal' but most of the people are not. there have been many japanese films of liberal bent, yet most japanese have been very conservative and/or nationalistic.
just because you met some highminded or openminded or cosmopolitian japanese filmmaker at a festival doesn't mean that all or most japanese are like that. it doesn't mean that if you bring a million japanese to the US, most of them will be like that filmmaker.
because liberals often mingle with the most highminded people around the globe, they have this foolish notion hat those highminds represent the essence of their nations when, in fact, they represent the exceptions. boris pasternak was not the voice of USSR but an exception.
similarly, we think of jews as anne franks but so many who came to the US turned out to be vicious haters, agitators, radicals.
we may be impressed by some liberal arab commentator on a news program--the kind that liberals usually rub shoulders with--but he doesn't represent the thinking that is common or prevalent among his countrymen.

granted, all people who come to the US can be made to love this country and adopt an american identity. but, this process is being overloaded with too many people coming too fast. also, it's not only not being encouraged but being discouraged due to political correctness and multiculturalism. leftist multiculturalists want cultural conflict to exploit for political purposes, tribal multiculturalists want to build walls around themselves, and liberal multiculturalists foolishly think that the high or bohemian culture of a people defines the culture of the masses.