Saturday, August 25, 2007

The Multicultural Trap

There is saying — probably dating back to the early part of the 20th Century — that goes something like this: Heaven would be French cuisine, German engineering and English law. Hell would be French engineering, German law and English cuisine.

I doubt I told it exactly right, but I think that old joke will still help make my point. Different cultures do some things much better than others; each with relative strengths and weaknesses. Ridiculously, multiculturalism demands that we accept all aspects of all cultures as equal.

Fortunately most of us know enough to pass on the spotted dick and opt instead for a nice French pastry. (Admission: I have no idea what “spotted dick” is, but how can any food that sounds like a late-stage venereal disease possibly taste good?) We might be politically correct enough to pay lip service to the merits of strange, illogical, or even disgusting practices from alien cultures, but given the freedom of choice, we’ll go with what we find more appealing.

On the other hand, if we keep an open mind, we may try something that’s completely novel. Then, making an assessment on how well a culturally different approach meets the objective, we might adopt it as our own for the future. By maintaining key values and setting certain standards we become cultural eclectics, and that is a very good thing. The infusion of new ideas leads to widespread progress and personal growth

It’s the values and standards though, that multiculturalists disdain. They recognize that if a certain culture's approach consistently comes in second, third … or even dead last when compared to some other society’s way of doing things, that culture would — and should — be deemed inferior. And since it’s usually a distinct race, ethnic group or religion that is most closely associated with any particular culture, multiculturalists fear that the members of that classification of humans will also be judged inferior by association. It’s a legitimate concern, but it does the individuals within an inferior culture no favor to have their second-rate choices propped up by politically correct platitudes. All people should be encouraged to grow by becoming more eclectic.

There is also a trap for people who are made to feel comfortable with their inferior culture when an aspect comes into conflict with one of the few standards that are almost universally required by the larger majority. I propose that Michael Vick’s condemnation for his grotesque dog-fighting exploits is an example of this trap in action.

The “rap or hip-hop’” culture is routinely celebrated and promoted by the popular media despite being virtually without objective merit. (Really, what are the chances that a child who is submerged in the hip-hop lifestyle will grow up to be doctor, lawyer, teacher, scientist or engineer?) Members of this community become effectively crippled from operating outside a very constricted and dysfunctional world. And so Michael Vick, despite his great athletic talent, was brought down.

Our society never did Vick the favor of saying, “Your culture sucks and if you don’t break away from it, it will destroy your chances for the kind of future you could enjoy.” No instead, he was fed a steady diet of Snoop Dogg and Ludacris ... et al as role models because they celebrate the very culture he came from. Any young person might think, “If just rapping about a lifestyle can make a person rich and famous, then living that lifestyle must be even more fulfilling.”

Michael Vick grew up in an inferior culture which the multiculturalists kept telling him was just as good as anyone else’s. I can understand why he must feel blind-sided. He could have been a great individual, but instead he was encouraged and pressured to subjugate his individual potential to a group identity. Now Michael Vick the individual is paying a price, while the culture that produced him remains sacrosanct.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Motivation Matters

Recently inspired by a friend’s blog, I took a little personality test based on Myers-Briggs. It turns out that I’m an INFJ. My profile — according to one write-up — includes this statement:
“Accurately suspicious about others' motives, INFJs are not easily led. These are the people that you can rarely fool any of the time.”

As this is rather flattering, I’ll accept the comment as true (perhaps thereby disproving its validity?). But whether or not I’m more attuned to motivations than most people, I do consider them to be very important.

There was an episode of South Park in which Kenny was brain-dead and in the hospital. Kyle and Stan wanted to keep their friend hooked up to life support. Eric (Cartman) wanted life support turned off so he could inherit Kenny’s video game. Meanwhile Kenny was needed in Heaven to help fight off an army of demons. (Hey, this IS South Park after all.)

In Stan’s “I think I’ve learned something today” moment, he realizes Eric wanted to do the right thing for the wrong reason, while he and Kyle wanted to the wrong thing for the right reason.

LOOKING PRESIDENTIAL

Is Eric Cartman the candidate for you?

From a practical standpoint, I suppose it's usually better to do the right thing for the wrong reason. But the disconnection between motivation and outcome demonstrated in the South Park episode points to an inherent flaw in representative democracy.

If you’re forced to vote for Eric (bad motivation, good outcome) or Kyle (good motivation, bad outcome) who do you choose? As an elected representative, Kyle may get it “wrong” on a single issue, but his heart is in the right place. Cartman is only out for Cartman. God only knows (and He's busy fighting the Devil Army) what Cartman would do when another problem needs to be resolved!

On the other hand, how important is this particular issue? And maybe your motivations are every bit as pure as Kyle’s. (F’rinstance, you happen to KNOW Kenny is needed in Heaven.) In the critical situation, do you vote for good-guy Kyle and risk destruction of the entire Spiritual Plane?

Politicians today are occasionally driven by ideology themselves, but more often, they are beholding to groups that are completely wedded to a specific agenda — most no better than Cartman’s. That means we might get what we want on one particular issue … say withdrawal from Iraq. But the representatives who’ll withdraw won’t stop there, and soon we’ve been transformed into “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” (Feel free to substitute your own example — leftist or rightwing — I just like the Bart Simpson phrase “cheese-eating surrender monkey.”)

I don’t think there's an easy answer, but I’m pretty sure that unless Heaven is about to fall, it’s a good idea to skeptically appraise the motivations of the people who most stridently support a particular candidate ... or oppose the other one.

Who really, really wants Rudy or Fred and who really, really wants Hillary or Barack? Go beyond today. Do you think you’ll want the same thing those folks want tomorrow?

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Freddy Kruger, where are you?

I love horror movies. I liked Aliens and all the Night/Dawn/Day of the Living Dead movies. I even have an affinity for the outrageous cult flicks like The Devil's Rejects or The Hills Have Eyes.

I appreciate a good disemboweling, torsos in the freezer, or the ubiquitous man-eating monster in the closet. I'm also quite the critic of cinematic (fake) blood. (It's usually too bright, and too watery.)

But I can only last about 15 minutes with the dramas on Lifetime. Incest, child abuse, spouse beating ... I can't take it.

Maybe it has something to do with it being a "channel for women." There's no doubt in my mind that females are tougher than males. (That's why God put them in charge of child birth. Men wouldn't be able to handle it.)
SPACE
Scary stuff.

I was flipping channels this evening and stopped ever so briefly on a Lifetime movie. I was soon "treated" to seeing a psycho mom spraying oven cleaner on a kid's back and then scrubbing with a scouring pad.

That was it ... I quickly had my channel clicker in high gear. Comparatively speaking, Saw III is good family entertainment.