Multiculturealism

The events in Norway has triggered debates and conversations about the man's motivations. It would appear he came from a middle-class, university-educated background. He's your stereotypical 'white man' - blond, light-eyed and Christian. He appears to view the increasing presence of 'immigrants', in particular those of middle-eastern backgrounds who practice Islam as threats to his beloved country and its way of life. I wonder what lead to his conclusions. What did he see, hear, experience that led him to conclude that the current government and its future generations were the reason behind his perceived decay in Norway's society?

Ultimately, this is a battle fought all over the world - multiculturalism and the great many things it brings. The human race, by nature, is tribal. We look after our own, however we define 'our own' be it by race, religion, skin-colour, family, tribe, village or country. Any outsider is viewed with suspicion and seen as potential threat. Why shouldn't we? History is littered with stories of one group trying to conquer another whether for economic wealth, religion or more likely, the sense of entitlement that you are more superior and the need to flex muscle and warn off any potential attackers. I don't think, even after milleniums of existence, that we have dampened that tribal element in us. It exist today as nationalism and fundamentalism. A person may identify themselves as either (or both), but a few take it a step further and justify violence as a means to their ideological ends.

The rapid and dramatic changes in the past century has forced us to encounter situations our ancestors never really had to deal with. Having neighbours, colleagues and fellow citizens whose cultural and religious practices are diverse, who have differing values and beliefs. They are not our masters or our slaves. We are all equal, each persons way of life no better than the next. I suspect recent history has a role to play in why we view each with so much suspicion - Take Zimbabwe's black government and it's policies on white-owned farmland. Take the undercurrent of tension and hostility between the Chinese and the Japanese. Even after a generation or two, past events hold so much power over how we see and interact with each other today.

To be honest, all this brouhaha over multiculturalism, 'boat-people' and immigration appears to be a Christian vs. Muslim thing, a Caucasian vs. Middle-eastern or any other dark-skinned person. I'm fair, look East Asian and speak good English with a faint accent. I wear glasses and look perpetually nerdy. I've never personally encountered racism. No-one has ever told me to go back to where I came from. I do not practice any religion and don't wear any culturally identifying clothing. In many ways, all this adds up to a non-threatening persona. It does not challenge or confront, it simple blends. Never mind I'm an economic migrant taking up precious space in Australia's ridiculously over-priced suburbs and indirectly responsible for the housing and transportation squeeze. Do those who rail against immigration, against multiculturalism see someone like me in their rants? Or are they visualising a tall black African? Or a turban wearing Punjabi? Or a hijab wearing Arab?

Then there is the flip-side - the migrants. I think migrating to another country with such differing values can be shock to the system. You feel alone, different. An outsider struggling to to comprehend the language and culture while encountering subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) discrimination. In encountering all this, in trying to adjust to a new life without a network of friends or family, is it not surprising that migrants are drawn to other migrants from their home land? That they retreat to the familiarity of their language and culture? It's not unusual to find migrants who hold on even more tightly to their cultural or religious identity then those still in their home country. It's comforting. It's familiar. It's home. Why don't they have a sense of belonging? If they did, would they embrace their new country better? I often wonder how I would be if I moved to a country like Saudi Arabia or any country with very divergent values and practices from my own. I do not think I would be truly 'assimilated' in their culture - I'd do what is necessary to not attract any attention or fuss . It would be a place completely alien to me and I bet I would seek out like-minded people, those who share my background and hang-on to them. In the end, we do what we need to survive.

In an Australian context, it's curious to hear the arguments of those who see immigration as the down-fall of 'traditional values' in Australia. How do they denigrate those who come on boats for a better life and yes, for economic reasons, with a straight face? Australia's history is rich with boat people. Boats travelling thousands of kilometers bringing people who did not chose to make the journey and those who sought a better live. They imposed their cultures and religion, subjugated another culture and its people, and forever altered the landscape of the land.

I think this issue tugs at deep-seated and perhaps not readily identifiable sense that one culture  is better than another. It's uncomfortable. We talk of incompatible values but are we really saying our values are more superior ? How do we determine what are 'civilised' or better cultures and practices?

This is something many Malaysians think about - 'ketuanan'. Special. It's not a far hop to Superior. And that scares me. Because people who believe they are superior, always believe they are right and have no room for others on the mantle. Everyone else is on the shelf below. And it doesn't have to take much to leap from inferior to exclusion to extermination.