Diversity and Multiculturalism Essay

Minority is a word describing a group representing a population smaller than the State. They are people of distinct culture, religion, language and ethnicity from the norms of the Society. Any group resembling the stated characteristics is a Minority. This description clearly emphasizes the rebuttal of Human Rights to people who are not living within the standards of the society. Group Rights or Minority Rights, in a popular manner, speaks of the Ethnic discrimination to some and a due right to others. Moreover, a conflict begins when an individual claims of his/her minority group and yet, the State does not recognize a Minority. The group rights tend to protect a certain group and reflects the other laws excluded on their existence, which for many individuals is a direct discrimination. Primarily, rights are powers to act in accordance with the existing system having values and principles approved by the society. It is a claim or title, whether legal, descriptive and moral (Sutton, 2001). The controversy exists regarding group rights on the term called Multiculturalism. This kind of group right often pertains to a member of an ethnic or religious group. Scholars perceive this kind of group right as a barrier to the actions that most ethnic groups have before there was â€Å"civilization. † It is a form of oppression because the majority opposes those traditional beliefs and pursues the so-called â€Å"equality† to such people. Group rights exist to discriminate, oppose and eliminate the traditional acts for the satisfaction of the majority. MULTICULTURALISM Multiculturalism is the opinion that all cultures, from tribesmen and modern civilization, to be equal. However, equality does not address the century old problem because of diverse conditions. Thus, multiculturalism confers with egalitarianism. The objective of multiculturalism is to obliterate the value of free, industrialized civilization, by declaring such civilization no better than the primitive tribalism. It wants to incapacitate the mind’s ability to differentiate good from evil, to differentiate life promoting to what life is negating. Some oppose this principle because they reason out that everyone has a right to moral judgment. The ideas and culture of a specific community should have recognition and respect. ISSUES ON MULTICULTURALISM Many question how the individuals would respect such minority rights if the problem remains on cultural differences. The argument of the multiculturalists’ defenders is that all cultures are equal and some factors coming from this culture are superior to the universal values. Some fruits of Enlightenment and egalitarian movements root from the cultural proponents. Colorful ethnic attire and interesting cuisine may seem interesting and attractive. Nevertheless, with the reality of women and children’s oppression worldwide, multiculturalism is increasingly a policy to maintain that oppression (Kamguian, 2005). The crimes against women become the celebration of traditional cultures and religions with the ignorance on it disadvantages. Governments of Western foundation utilized the policy of multiculturalism in the past, which encourage and uphold the demands for group rights coming from native populations, ethnic minorities or religious groups. However, these cultures have societal cultures that employ members of meaningful ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social, educational, religious, and recreational life. Because these societal cultures play an essential role in the lives of members and because these cultures face extinction, they should have special rights for protection. This accord with group rights but that is not the case with the societal norms like slavery, female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor killing and other horrors respected by the society. These horrible practices are within the multicultural principle but it the proper action is to eradicate it. The argument begins with multiculturalism, which acts as a substitute policy to ensure a tolerant and democratized compliance in a world that conflicts between cultures eradicate such values. Moreover, the argument leads to racism and tyranny, as the dominant group want to create a universal norm. Another argument consists of the human basic need for cultural attachments. This need then should have protection from validating and protecting different cultures. The supporters of multiculturalism contrast that individual rights is sufficient enough for protection of minority cultures or their way of life that has a consequence of having special group rights and privileges such as arbitrations from Sharia in Canada and allowances fro polygamous men in France. In other cases, group rights claim to have political exclusions, govern their principles and exempt them from the general law. Often, cultures are patriarchal and many cultures claim group rights are more patriarchal than the surrounding cultures. Examples are the common gender inequalities like child marriages, forced marriages, divorce systems biased against women, polygamy and clitoridoctomy. These cases violate women and children’s individual rights of the society. This respect for cultural traditions resulted to lack of support and voices for women and children and the marginalization of progressive forces. When one observes the culture of these minority groups, they would see how oppression and repression reside within their own communities. Not all cultures are equal even though humans’ possess culture, some may be better that the other cultures and others may possess values unacceptable to the society. Indeed the very idea of equality is the product of the Enlightenment and the political and intellectual revolutions that it unleashed (Kamguian, 2005). Forcing equality means to challenge accepted practices and believing in possibility of transformation. However, permitting the differences by the dominant culture is the acceptance of the society as a whole. The â€Å"diversity† movement is not imparting knowledge to students, but promoting racism. – Michael S. Berliner Racism is a notion directing one race as superior to another race. The affirmative action viewed by some is a form of ethnic diversity, a form of politically correct disguise. The belief of racism is that one’s convictions, values and character is particularly based on anatomy or â€Å"blood† and not by judgment. This view tends to see people of different pigmentation as different from the superior pigmentation. The spread of racism causes destruction of the individual in one’s mind. This individual then clings to another race, wanting to have that belongingness because of race diversity. Proponents of diversity seem to be the true racists because they see the world through the color of lens, hair and skin. To multiculturalists, values, thinking and human identity all cling to race. Multiculturalism establishes the oppression in equality. Proponents of diversity teach the youth that people having different cultures also have different capacities resulting to recognition of separatism and glorifying a specific race. This revolutionizes â€Å"racial identity† that aims to erect an unbridgeable perception on race differences. Hence, any cooperation between races is impossible because of their differences being emphasized. ETHNICITY AND GROUP RIGHTS The Ethnic Group has group rights that defend their members who want to exercise their right to behave and enables them to act diversely from the majority. The ethnic group supports their group rights and their representatives, subsequently. It is unnecessary and undesirable to put these rights in a metaphysical entity, which bear their independent human characteristics. In addition, the right in question resorts to be a negative claim. The majority should not forbid such groups to defend their rights. In fact, for the reason that they have the utmost power in defense, they should assist the minority to respect and bear the minority rights in a positive way. However, this can apply to a situation where the ethnic group does a grave misconduct not prevented by the existing rules and regulations. Another is that the ethnic group should observe the group rights, voluntarily and autonomously. People cannot defend a right not chosen by them. Sutton defines that in order to enact such rights they must show the capacity to understand to successful claimants (Sutton, 2001, p 21). The ethnic group rights should correspond with the human rights, as it would give them the right to protect such liberties whenever the majority, which also has human rights, opposes their ethnic habits. Nonetheless, the civil liberty of individuals and ethnic group rights come from the principle of prima facie rights, which explains the liberty experienced by the ethnic group due to these rights has limitations whenever the ethnic habits impose grave suffering or serious restrictions of liberty on other human beings. In general, the obligation of the majority has a duty not to restrict freedom when they wish to observe harmless habits and if the majority’s opposition puts a grave suffering to the ethnic group, then, they have to restrict such opposition (Hayry, 2007). Ethnic minorities do not have a group right to force or coerce their members into observing duties, which are not required by the principles of liberty and the avoidance of suffering (Hayry, 2007). Individuals have three duties, the duty not to inflict harm to another individual, the duty not to restrict unreasonably the freedom of others and the duty not to breach voluntary, harmless contracts. The first duty means for the individuals to act accordingly to the rule of the group without coercing such right. The argument then is the term ethnic group coerces their right because they did not choose the term themselves but a group will not defend a right not made by them. Hence, the general implication is to coerce such freedom, which they themselves have not freely assumed. The second duty restricts any enforcement of freedom, which proves to be unnecessary to the ethnic group. The majority would see that being a member of a minority group would enforce the second duty that is false in belief that will alter the norms. Conversely, everyone has the duty to restrict or condemn habits that will impose suffering and unwarranted restrictions of freedom. In general, the second argument gives the majority the right to restrict ethnic habits given that it will impose harm to the society but it should exceed the principles of equality and fairness. Most of the majority will regard the thesis of defense concerning ethnic habits, which they find different from the norms, false. This is natural, as the dominant groups want a homogenous society supplying the best foundation for human flourishing, even if it costs the principle of liberty and avoidance of suffering. Nonetheless, the significant patterns that endow social conformity should have actions in eliminating cultural diversity (Hayry, 2007). INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM The principle on individualism is the individual as the primary unit of reality and the ultimate preference of value. Contrary to what other opinions say, individualism does not deny the existence of a society rather the society as a group of individuals not above those individuals. Individualism sees every person as the end of himself and there should be no sacrifice of an individual for another (Stata, 1992). The achievement of an individual credits for himself/herself and not based on the achievements of others. Even though the society believes of individualism as isolation, it does not deny the cooperation but is a theory of the conditions living and working with other people as beneficial. In general, individualism gives credit to an individual and not on the individual’s membership with a society. The probable cure for racial differences is individualism or seeing the person not because of his/her race but because of his/her abilities. The diversity movement aims to teach the following: diversity awareness, diversity training, diversity hiring and submissions and diversity accommodations, which all refer to racial preference. The proper dose on racial issues is to appreciate individually and treatment of collective merits (Locke, 2000). CONCLUSION Protection of human rights in various fields becomes depressing in the past century. Many have resulted to war, as they protect their community from discrimination and sustenance of group rights. Before group rights, many institutions protected the safety of minorities. Three major periods existed in favor of minority group rights. The first period appeared in a non-systematic protection comprising mainly of incorporation of protective clauses, particularly in favor of religious minorities. The second period existed after World War I within the framework of the League of Nations. Lastly are the developments following World War II (Lerner, 2003) on group rights. With all these developments in minorities and group rights, still the existing truth on racial discrimination is emerging. Many say of diversity as an act of racism, that employing group rights does not prove to be efficient in eradicating discrimination. Briefly, group rights is not a power rather a suppression, racial diversity and oppression hiding in equality. References Berliner, M. Diversity and Multiculturalism. 24 May 2000 14 November 2007 Sutton, P. Kinds of Rights in Country: Recognising Customary Rights as Incidents of Native Title. 2001. 14 November 2007 p. 29 National Native Title Tribunal. Hayry, H. Ethnicity and Group Rights, Individual Liberties and Immoral Obligations. 14 November 2007 Minority. 14 November 2007 Kamguian, A. Universal Rights versus Individual Rights. 6 July 2005 14 November 2007 Culture and Multiculturalism. 14 November 2007 Locke, E. Individualism – The Only Cure for Racism. 12 December 1997 14 November 2007 Lerner, N. Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law. Boston: Martinus Nihjoff Publishers, 2003.