Multiculturalism as it is sought in America today, is a harbinger of tribalism or “ethnicism.” It possesses
intrinsic potential to produce a social consciousness similar to tribalism, because it is simply a social concept
where many cultures exist in divergent parallels within a particular society or social setting. The contemporary
profuse concept of multiculturalism lacks objectivity and is in direct conflict with common sense and the basic
concepts of unity.
It certainly makes good sense to incorporate the good and beneficial aspects of all cultures in a society. Nevertheless,
in order to do so, there has to be certain established universal standards by which those cultural aspects are measured.
When there are no established moral standards, multiculturalism becomes an all-inclusive concept to incorporate both
beneficial and detrimental conducts or aspects of all cultures.
The essential philosophical foundation of multiculturalism is cultural relativism—“a moral
theory that holds that what’s good or bad or right or wrong varies from society to society depending on what each society
says to be, or believes to be, good or bad or right or wrong.” This notion is only partially tenable in isolated unitary
cultures, not in societies like America. The concept of the existence of different concepts of reality - truth,
right or wrong, good or bad is an unrealistic politically correct ideal. In fact, it is vice paying homage to virtue.
Multiculturalism to presents the argument that one behavior or culture is not necessarily better than
another or that an act is not necessarily right or wrong—that they are just different. The supposed reason is that the
comparison of behaviors or cultures risks being extended to people associated with those behaviors or cultures, which
would consequently lead to prejudice against those people.
Invariably, therefore, all aspects of all cultures would be equally valid; meaning that no culture - tradition, custom,
or way of life or aspects thereof is necessarily right or wrong, better or worse - all are equally good and equally bad,
that is assuming there is any such thing as good or bad. Consequently, no culture should emulate another, borrow or learn from another, since all are equally efficacious and valid. Given that
this notion eliminates comparison between cultures (and their attributes) by eliminating common standards, it essentially
means that there is no better idea (or way of doing any particular thing).
By analogical implication, it would therefore, be equally efficacious to travel from Chicago to New York City on foot,
donkey, horseback, bicycle, canoe, automobile, or airplane. It would also be equally effective to deliver a message from
Manhattan to Queens or from Paris to London by physically going to Queens or London, by messenger pigeon, by making a
phone call, sending a fax or e-mail. A high-fat diet, high-carbohydrate diet, and a balanced diet would also all be
equally beneficial to the body. Formal education, informal education, and no education would also all be of equal effects.
After all, it is only a matter of definition. To hold or advance any argument in favor of these notions is utterly
disingenuous. It encourages stagnation of some societies, and tends to say to the inhabitants thereof that they don’t
deserve a better life.
Since the concept of right and wrong or morality is intrinsically tied to truth, therefore, in view of the postmodernist
multicultural philosophy, it would mean that no conduct is good and equally no conduct is bad. That’s all that is required
to make a truth a lie and a lie a truth or to make “good” "bad and “bad and bad "good".” In the final
analysis, every conduct would be valid, everything would be good and every claim would be true. The implication of
which is that every conduct would be wrong, everything would be bad, and every claim would be false. The logic
exposes the folly of multicultutalism, culture becomes all inclusive (multiculturalism) and all “cultural practices”
become valid and legitimate.
Multiculturalism seeks to replace the ideals of universal applicability of truth with conditional, multiple,
and local truths, which, rather than referencing some underlying universal reality, point only to other ideas
and cultural realities—themselves subject to biased interpretations and re interpretations. The role of individuals,
particularly individual body, and action is emphasized over standardized forms of knowledge. Consequently,
knowledge and truth become interpreted according to one’s own local experiences and tangential to effort to rationalize,
illiegitimate conducts, rather than measured against proven standardized universal structures of knowledge, truth and valid conducts.