Multiculturalism

[william.scherk]

I think this has been posted before on OL, but what the heck. These niqabitches are now subject to fines . . .

[bmacwilliam]

The type of dress we have been talking about is specifically an Islamic type of dress. In a society in which Islam is not present now or in the past, noone living in the society would be raised according to Islamic customs. So why would you expect a woman not raised in an Islamic family to wear this type of dress? Similarly, in a society without Catholic influence, there would presumably be no nuns or priests wearing the type of dress associated with these jobs. And in a society without Jewish influence, there would presumably be no men wearing the traditional clothes worn by Hassidic jews. Can we extrapolate from this that nuns and priests and Hassidic jews do not choose, of their own free will, to wear the type of clothes that they wear?

Martin

You kill your own argument.

Nuns and Priests are not laymen(women). Therfore, in most cases at least, this is an individual's choice. Muslim women cannot choose not to be muslim women - certainly not in a muslim country and practically not in a muslim family.

The fact that this dress is NEVER chosen other than under religious influence definitively PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that the choice is coerced and is not free. If it was a free choice, then free people would choose it, however rarely. They don't - ever. This dress is both a symbol and an implementation of repression/submission(to men, not God) and even a libertarian says that you can't willingly submit to slavery.

The other dress examples you cite are NOT slavery/submission symbols (at least to other men).

Your argument dies several ways.

Bob

[Martin Radwin]

The type of dress we have been talking about is specifically an Islamic type of dress. In a society in which Islam is not present now or in the past, noone living in the society would be raised according to Islamic customs. So why would you expect a woman not raised in an Islamic family to wear this type of dress? Similarly, in a society without Catholic influence, there would presumably be no nuns or priests wearing the type of dress associated with these jobs. And in a society without Jewish influence, there would presumably be no men wearing the traditional clothes worn by Hassidic jews. Can we extrapolate from this that nuns and priests and Hassidic jews do not choose, of their own free will, to wear the type of clothes that they wear?

Martin

You kill your own argument.

Nuns and Priests are not laymen(women). Therfore, in most cases at least, this is an individual's choice. Muslim women cannot choose not to be muslim women - certainly not in a muslim country and practically not in a muslim family.

You really like to make generalizations that are true in some cases but are certainly nowhere close to being universally true. Muslim women cannot choose not to be muslim women in a muslim country? Is this true of all muslim countries? What about Turkey or Malaysia? If a muslim woman from Turkey or Iran or Iraq or Indonesia or Malaysia decides not to practice Islam, is she necessarily going to be stoned to death? Your generalization may be true in a few muslim countries dominated by Wahhabism, such as Saudi Arabia, but it is hardly universally true. And it's certainly not true in France, which of course in not a majority muslim country. Muslim women cannot choose not to be muslim women if they grow up in a muslim family? Again, you are grossly generalizing, assuming that all muslim families are of the most extreme fundamentalist variety, such that they would murder their own daughter for repudiating their religion. Granted, such fanatic families exist, but are you really going to argue that all muslim families are like this?

The fact that this dress is NEVER chosen other than under religious influence definitively PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that the choice is coerced and is not free. If it was a free choice, then free people would choose it, however rarely. They don't - ever.

So the fact that Hassidic jewish men wear a particular style of clothing that they would never wear if they did not grow up under the influence of Judaism, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that their choice is coerced and not free? What about Indian women who wear saris? I've never seen anyone other than Indian women wear saris. So it's pretty fair to conclude that, had they not grown up in an Indian influenced culture, they would never wear them. Is their choice to wear saris coerced? What about Siek men who wear long beards and wear their hair in a turban? Have you ever seen anyone other than Siek men dress this way? Obviously, their choice of dress would never be made without their religious influence. Is their choice to wear long beards and to wear their hair in a turban coerced?

As for muslim women who wear the burka, can you not imagine that not all of them are doing so because they are coerced into it? Don't you think that at least some of them wear the burka as a symbol of their devotion to their religious beliefs? Or even possibly as a sexual turnon for herself and her husband? If a woman claims to wear the burka because it expresses her feeling of devotion to Allah, should we automatically assume that she is lying, and that her real motive for wearing it is to avoid having her husband kill her? And if there is in fact evidence that her husband is threatening to kill her if she chooses not to wear the burka, is this not grounds to arrest the husband, rather than to fine or arrest the woman being terrorized by a murderous husband?

This dress is both a symbol and an implementation of repression/submission(to men, not God) and even a libertarian says that you can't willingly submit to slavery.

The other dress examples you cite are NOT slavery/submission symbols (at least to other men).

Your argument dies several ways.

Bob

Now, you're just being ridiculous. Symbols are in the eye of the beholder. There is no universal symbolic meaning for anything, including burkas. I am sure that there are radical feminists around today who would argue that wedding rings are a symbol of women being bound to men as their property. Undoubtedly, there are some men who view wedding rings in precisely this way. So is the government justified in banning wedding rings as a symbol of female oppression? If we're going to start banning things that are sometimes symbols of oppression, I can think of a whole list of things that become immediate candidates for banning other than just burkas. Personally, I don't care to grant the government this power.

It's true that libertarians argue that an individual can't willingly submit to slavery, and I agree completely with this argument. But drawing an analogy between voluntarily wearing an item of clothing with a symbolic meaning you don't like, and submitting to slavery, is absurd.

Martin

[studiodekadent]

Why is it that in the States this issue is shown in such stark terms? Blacks having Afrocentric courses in college to teach their narrative... is like having the Huns burning down the White House apparently.

I replied to this thread outlining my philosophical objections to literal multiculturalism before, but I want to specifically reply to the point in italics.

"Their" narratives?

By the same logic, European culture should have its own narrative. Oh, wait, sorry, there are multiple European cultures, and certainly there is more than one African culture.

But lets see... why should I automatically feel close to a specific narrative because it is part of my civilization? As a white Westerner, probably the most single influential narrative of my 'culture' is that of Jesus and I certainly don't identify with that (unless you reinterpret it into a story of a man crucified for standing against authority and standing up for his own convictions, but that's a very "promethean" re-reading rather than the actual meaning of the narrative itself). I don't identify with most Greek and Roman myths (Prometheus being an exception, but again, its still a 'doomed moral victor' thing). I don't identify with Celtic mythologies or Viking warrior-culture.

I identify with the Enlightenment strain of Western civilization, but the Enlightenment clearly bridges multiple nationalities with very different cultures.

So, this whole "the narratives of a specific people" thing is a ridiculous oversimplification. Yes, sure, storytellers intend to craft stories which crystallize the experiences of their audience in order to provide something the audience can relate to and/or to concretize their vision of what it means to be 'us' (so to speak). But given how many people disagree so wildly on these variant issues, how the hell can someone talk about "a culture's narrative/s" without radically oversimplifying things at the very least?

[bmacwilliam]

As for muslim women who wear the burka, can you not imagine that not all of them are doing so because they are coerced into it?

No. Clearly no. I have not just explained why, I have PROVEN why.

Don't you think that at least some of them wear the burka as a symbol of their devotion to their religious beliefs?

No, the burka/niqab is NOT a religious symbol, is a cultural thing. It is all about oppression and not about religion at all.

Or even possibly as a sexual turnon for herself and her husband?

Now you're just talkin' crazy.

If a woman claims to wear the burka because it expresses her feeling of devotion to Allah, should we automatically assume that she is lying, and that her real motive for wearing it is to avoid having her husband kill her? And if there is in fact evidence that her husband is threatening to kill her if she chooses not to wear the burka, is this not grounds to arrest the husband, rather than to fine or arrest the woman being terrorized by a murderous husband?

What's with all the killing? A single smack up side the head will do the trick.

Symbols are in the eye of the beholder. There is no universal symbolic meaning for anything, including burkas.

Wrong. Many symbols are universally crystal-clear.

I am sure that there are radical feminists around today who would argue that wedding rings are a symbol of women being bound to men as their property. Undoubtedly, there are some men who view wedding rings in precisely this way. So is the government justified in banning wedding rings as a symbol of female oppression?

Umm... Men wear rings too. There's an equality thing here. If an equal propertion of men wore burkas/niqabs and walked behind their wives, and needed a female escort to go out in public and... and... and... you might have a beginning of a point. They don't - ever, and therefore you have no point.

It's true that libertarians argue that an individual can't willingly submit to slavery, and I agree completely with this argument. But drawing an analogy between voluntarily wearing an item of clothing with a symbolic meaning you don't like, and submitting to slavery, is absurd.

No it's not absurd at all. It's a clear, direct, unapologetic and open submission of subservience to men. What's also clear is that your irrational fear of government intrusion clouds even your fundamental libertarian restriction of choice/inalienable rights. That's what is truly absurd.

Bob

Edited April 15, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[anthony]

Bob_Mac,

So you're anti-patriachalism, tribalism and coercion.

And for individual rights, justice and voluntarism.

Absolutely right.

But why stop at the burqa?

There is the whole of male-dominated Africa and Asia to 'visit', and a myriad of cultures.

Then there's the 'injustice' of a child 'forced' to adopt his parents' religion and culture - Judaism, Christianity or Islam, whichever one it is.

Most have symbols, some, more "in your face", than others.

Submission is a question of degree, and you have picked on the one symbol of submission you don't approve of.

(Even when it is willing submission, which you keep avoiding.)

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

Bob_Mac,

So you're anti-patriachalism, tribalism and coercion.

And for individual rights, justice and voluntarism.

Absolutely right.

But why stop at the burqa?

There is the whole of male-dominated Africa and Asia to 'visit', and a myriad of cultures.

Then there's the 'injustice' of a child 'forced' to adopt his parents' religion and culture - Judaism, Christianity or Islam, whichever one it is.

Most have symbols, some, more "in your face", than others.

Submission is a question of degree, and you have picked on the one symbol of submission you don't approve of.

(Even when it is willing submission, which you keep avoiding.)

Tony

From NPR Report/Interview

"Chalghoumi publicly endorsed President Sarkozy's plan to ban the face-covering veil, known here as the burqa. Chalghoumi says the tribal garb has no theological basis in Islam and it imprisons women and their children."

That's right Chalghoumi - rector of the Mosque of Drancy and president of the Conference of French Imams.

"willing submission", no, imprisonment. Face the truth.

Libertarian values of inalienable rights are pretty quickly discarded when they become a little inconvenient. Have the guts to stick to a principle.

Bob

Edited April 15, 2011 by Bob_Mac