NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... can be best defined as the establishment of freedom of expression, within a society, which is meant to benefit such society by providing citizens with opportunity to have their voices heard, when it comes to the realization of common good. The political pluralism in America is guaranteed by U. S. Constitutions First Amendment.
In his Federalist Papers, James Madison suggested that providing conditions for the existence of political pluralism in America is the most important precondition for the democracy, in traditional sense of this word. Since the end of War for Independence, Americans were entitled to freely express their opinions, without the fear of prosecution. This is one of the most important reasons why U. S. began to attract immigrants from all over the world, while slowly becoming the dominant power in the world. It is very remarkable that the issue of pluralism in contemporary America is not being discussed within the context of politics, as it should, but within the context of making Americans to believe that it is beneficial for our country to have citizens that are concerned about celebrating diversity more than they do about contributing to the well-being of America.
Thus, the original essence of pluralism becomes lost, because majority of people associate it with Hindus being allowed to carry knives in public (as part of maintaining their ethnic identity), for example, than with making provisions for free political debate. In her article Challenge of Pluralism, Diana Eck comes up with her own definition of what pluralism stands for: First, I would want to insist that pluralism is not the sheer fact of this plurality alone, but is active engagement with plurality. Pluralism and plurality are sometimes used as if they were synonymous. But plurality is just diversity, plain and simple -- splendid, colorful, maybe even threatening. Such diversity does not, however, have to affect me.
I can observe diversity. I can even celebrate diversity (Eck, p. 98). Author does not explain what is the difference between plurality and engagement with plurality. Her semantic equilibrist ics are meant to conceal the fact that the concept of pluralism ceased to exist in the way it was originally intended to. As we have mentioned before, pluralism suggests the existence of a common good. However, multicultural society can have no common goals, because in it, it is citizens ethnic affiliation that defines their political loyalties and not the sense of logic.
It became a Medias cliche to talk of Americans as being united more then ever before. However, this is nothing but a myth and it became apparent to everyone during the hurricane Katrina. Even our biased Medias could not hide the fact that the majority of African-Americans, in the affected areas, were preoccupied with looting. Some of them would rather drown then let go boxes with Mp 3 players, they stole from the stores, for example.
Every electrical blackout in large American cities results in stores being broken in with the purpose of theft, on the part of people who otherwise are considered law-abiding citizens. (3) This is another effect of multiculturalism people that are artificially divided along racial or cultural lines cannot engage with plurality, because they sustain bodily injuries, as a result. This could be the reason why Eck unwillingly describes modern America pluralism as dangerous. The promoters of Liberal agenda always emphasize the importance of creating a pluralistic atmosphere within a society. However, it never bothers them when citizens constitutional rights are being taken away from them. For them, pluralism consists of promoting the idea of White guilt and giving the newly arrived immigrants, from the Third World countries, more privileges then Americans have. However, when it comes to defending the constitutional freedoms of Americans, politically correct experts begin to sing an entirely different tune.
They deny citizens their right to own weapons and to enjoy freedom of speech, which are the preconditions for the existence of pluralistic state in the first place. Those who disagree with them are being automatically branded as bigots, chauvinists or even sexists. This is why it is important to understand that pluralism is closely related to the political sanity, as the main principle upon which countrys social policies are based. For example, political pluralism existed in England, before this country began to be flooded with Muslims from Pakistan and India. The Conservative and Labor parties used to come up with propositions of how to make the life of ordinary British citizens better and people would vote for the party they thought was addressing their needs the best. Nowadays, there are areas in London where native-born Englishmen cannot enter, because they would risk to be killed, as Muslims think that these areas belong to them exclusively.
According to the recent sociological surveys, 40 % of British Muslims support Bin Laden, which amounts their total number to 2 million. In other words, 2 millions of Britains sworn enemies live in Britain legally, while holding British passports. (4) Everybody understand that something needs to be done, in order to prevent Britain from becoming a Northern Pakistan, however, neither Conservatives or Laborites are willing to even discuss this problem, because they are afraid of Medias turning against them. We can say that once person continues to do something that causes him harm, he cannot be allowed to promote his life style, because it would negatively affect others. He cannot be a part of pluralistic process.
Multiculturalism is nothing but a doctrine of physical and mental degradation, therefore, in every country, where it becomes a dominant social philosophy; it eventually results in the destruction of pluralism and democracy. It appears that U. S. is about to follow Britains and Germany's footsteps, in this respect. Just like in these countries, the voices to introduce hate laws and to completely eliminate the freedom of speech are becoming louder.
In his article Multiculturalism, Minorities and the Law, Maurice Rickard points out to the fact that many people are being intentionally lied, as to what is the true nature of pluralism: Citizens are being taught to confuse pluralism with tolerance and it undermines the value of their political opinion (Rickard. p. 27). Our modern concepts of pluralism and democracy derive from ancient Greek ideal of justice as something that has a transcendent essence. Ancient Greeks believed in the effectiveness of democracy, because back than it was not associated with spiritual decay, as it is the case nowadays. Citizens were able to affect the political dynamics in cities-states not because they simply lived there, but because their opinions really did have a value, whatever contradictory they might have been. The reason for this was simple the equality of ancient Greeks was not just a proclaimed but factual, since they were biologically equal.
We will only be able to seriously consider the possibility of true pluralism in U. S. , when the racial mixing in this country will come to its logical end and result in creation of entirely new race of people who will not be able to operate with abstract categories. In its turn, it would unable further cultural and scientific progress. Unfortunately, the rise of such pluralism will coincide with America descending into barbarism, as it happens everywhere, where the notion of quantity is given preference over quality. (3) As we have shown earlier in the paper, the concepts of multiculturalism and pluralism actually do not have much in common. In fact, there can be no political pluralism, in classical sense of this word, in the society where people are being enforced to celebrate diversity, because any opinion that might have a potential to stir controversy, will simply be suppressed. Multicultural society does not strive to achieve any higher goals it simply tries to maintain social stability, at the expense of rooting out controversial opinions.
Therefore, the onslaught on the freedom of speech in this country is not meant to eliminate racial or political intolerance, as it is being officially proclaimed, but to enable further existence of America in the form we are all used to. However, the soul of America will be lost, even though that there are still going to be skyscrapers in New York and Starbucks coffee shops in California. In the final years, before ancient Rome was being sacked by barbarians, its citizens used to wear togas, they indulged in bellyful idling and sexual deviations, which they described as sensual pluralism, and they even used to dye their hair, while hoping that this would give them back their long lost biological essence. (5) As history shows, it did not help them a lot. In todays America, we can observe exactly the same social trends, which will inevitably destroy this nation if they are allowed to pursue their course. There is only one reason why all great ancient civilizations eventually declined multiculturalism, which enabled the process of racial mixing to start gaining a momentum. In order for us to bring back sanity in American politics, we need to say no to dividing America racially, culturally and politically, no to introducing the concept of historical guilt, no to rewriting the history, no to making this country a melting pot, without the central idea of English language and culture as something that brings people together.
Political pluralism cannot be imposed on people, just as the idea of democracy cannot be imposed on Iraqis. We are all different, but if we allow our differences to proceed on their natural course, we will find ourselves in the state of anarchy. This is why multiculturalism is so dangerous and this is why it is a mistake to confuse it with the ideals of pluralism. If any newly arrived immigrant begins to complain about the lack of tolerance, on the part of Americans, he needs to be told that it would be much easier for him to celebrate his cultural uniqueness in the country where he came from, where there is no racism, no running water, no Wal-Mart stores and no welfare checks. Bibliography: Horace, K. (1924) Democracy versus the Melting-Pot: The Culture and Democracy in the United States, New York: Boni and Liveright, P. 118. (book) Herrnstein, R.
and Murray, C. (1994) Bell Curve. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. P. 105. (book) Eck, D. (1993). The Challenge of Pluralism. Nieman Reports. Vol.
XLVII, No. 2. P. 98. (magazine) Maurice, R. (1991). Multiculturalism, Minorities and the Law. Current Affairs Bulletin. November. P. 27. (magazine) Mohajer, J. (1995).
Counting the Cost of Multiculturalism. The Record. P. 8. (magazine) Washington, B. (1967). Up from Slavery. New York: State University of New York Press. P. 99. (book) Footnotes: Casciani, D. (2005).
Bin Laden is Seen as a Hero. BBC News. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from web Chapter 16: Racial Cauldron - Rome and the Near Middle East. (2002). March of the Titans. History of White Race. White History.
Com. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from web Hawkins, J. (2001). The Cutting Edge Of Paranoia, Racism, And Idiocy. Right Wing News. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from web In a City Without Rules, is Looting OK? . (2005). MSNBC.
Breaking News. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from web Wise, T. (1998). Color-Conscious, White-Blind. Zmag. Org. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from web Outline: Multiculturalism Pluralism Conclusion
Free research essays on topics related to: sense of this word, freedom of speech, ancient greeks, melting pot, racial mixing
Research essay sample on Pluralism And Multiculturalism In Part 2
