Shawarma --- part I

(also available in Dutch)

Yagshemash! Your columnist went to see Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, and had a great time. The movie is scathing and caustic, anarchistic, tasteless and dark, and certainly not suitable for everyone, but I laughed my ass off nonetheless. Directed by Larry Charles (also responsible for the gut wrenching laughs of Curb Your Enthusiasm), Sasha Baron Cohen manages to breathe hilarious comedy into the character of Borat. Nothing and nobody is spared, and Cohen's guts and talent for improv are laudable indeed. In a few scenes he pushes the limits to such extremes, that it's a small miracle he managed to walk away in one piece. Check out this movie!

Of course, the obvious question is: exactly who or what is mocked in this movie? And even though the people in Kazakhstan (where apparently no-one ever heard of cultural relativism) seriously think the joke's on them, and even though the movie itself is filled to the brim with typical Jewish humour (that is: Jews telling anti-Semitic jokes), the consensus however seems to be that the movie should mainly be regarded as a searing indictment of those stupid Yankees. Well, isn't that hilarious? Prudish Americans who shy away from a man that tries to kiss them, and who turn out to be terribly anti-Semitic. Duh! --- since when did anti-Semitism qualify as a typical American trait? Did I miss a meeting? I seriously wonder what anti-Semitic streaks Borat would have uncovered had he confronted European intellectuals instead --- they're usually not too fond of Jews either.

And even though some Americans do drop their masks, it seems to me that most of them react in a perfectly decent fashion, and even approach Borat with patience; like he's a naive child that just doesn't know any better. No, the true satire runs a lot deeper, because apart from the few Americans that show their true colours, we are actually looking at a not so flattering caricature of a muslim for almost 90 minutes. Strange how no-one seems to take issue over this.

And during a scene in which an elderly lady patiently explains to Borat what toilet paper is for, the penny drops: multiculturalism, it flashes in my head --- that's what this movie is all about. And more specifically, the dubious notion that a stranger's culture deserves a holy respect, and should be protected from any criticism. Even those nasty xenophobe Americans turn out to be devout practitioners of the multiculturalist faith. Borat confronts them with behaviour they would never accept from a fellow American, but hardly anyone of his victims dares to stand up to him. He can just behave in his backward foreign ways, and no-one even dares to stop him. And even if Borat and his victims reach common cultural ground, it invariably concerns unholy matters that should not deserve any understanding to begin with: anti-Semitism, homophobia and sexism. My two cents is that Cohen (who himself is Jewish) is seriously worried about how the West seems to accommodate the less favourable notions of Islam --- riding, of course, under the flag of this fantastic multiculturalism.

So there we are. Multiculturalism. Let's talk about it.

Multiculturalism has to be the most ignorant non-seller in the Marx's bankrupt estate, and the stupidest ideology from the red land of wonder. It is burdened with the same schizophrenic agenda that typifies any brand of socialism; on the one side we hear hallelujah-stories about a glorious future of equality and compassion for mankind; and on the other side we hear the vindictive oppressed sharpening their knives to gut the evil oppressor. All legitimately, of course. And as much as it is the goal of marxism to destroy Western economics, so it is the intention of multiculturalism to drag Western culture onto the scaffold. We are told that our culture is completely void, meaningless and without worth, and should not dare to claim prevalence over other cultures; not even on its own turf. We are told our culture should step back, and leave room to all that exquisiteness from abroad. Because in contrast to our own culture, these foreign cultures still possess the kind of deep truths and noble humaneness that are so desparately needed to establish heaven on earth.

What comes from afar tastes better --- but of course this only applies to cultures where the standard of living is a lot lower than it is in the West, and where the majority of people are of a considerably darker tone of skin. Therefore, it goes without saying that American culture doesn't count: multiculturalist who go all ecstatic about fried chicken wings from Surinam , will all of a sudden turn away disdainfully when confronted with McDonald's or Walt Disney. This is why an American immigrant is usually described as "a Yankee pothead who smokes his brains out all day long", and an Iranian immigrant gets called "a disillusioned and uprooted person". This is why a portly theatre director from New York is defined as "a woman who obviously hasn't turned down the riches of her country", but an even fatter, yet black-skinned, leader of a troop of Ghanese puppeteers is presented to us as "a wise, powerful and impressive woman; a true Mother of the Earth".

Obviously, the multicultural ideal is nothing new. Mankind has always fantasized about a future in which we all congregate as brothers. But as you may have noticed, this hasn't really happened yet, has it? History shows us time and time again that the brotherhood of man is a romantic illusion at best, without much substance or practical value. Multiculturalism is flawed in much the same way; it delivers a few inspired slogans, and that is it. It offers no practical administrative framework, it offers no quantifiable goals, and it has absoluetly no clue how to implement, regulate or evaluate a multicultural society.

And dare I ask, what in fact IS a multiculture? How does one define it? How do we go about creating one? Is there a manual somewhere that has already proven its worth? And why should a multiculture be able to sustain itself in the first place? There is neither any empirical evidence whatsoever that supports the functionality of the multicultural model, nor does history provide us with any examples of successful multicultures. And even if the multiculture that we wish to implement doesn't immediately self-destruct, how do we assess whether or not the multiculture we created is a successful one? And what about irreconcilable cultural differences? Can they be solved? And if not, doesn't this compromise the whole affair? What are the advantages of a multicultural society, and do these outweigh the disadvantages? And, why would we wish a multiculture for ourselves in the first place? Is it better, higher, more beautiful? And if so, why? No multiculturalist knows how to answer these questions. They usually mumble a bit about "tolerance", "the global village" and "our colonial debt", and that's about it. The 'internal construct validity' of the multicultural model --- that is: the degree to which the model succeeds in creating a unified, measurable and generally applicable handle on the concept of multiculturalism --- is standing on quicksand.

The external validity is equally bad: multiculturalism is far from a proven concept. To put it more bluntly: the multiculture doesn't even exist. Or did you think that you were living in a multicultural society, just because your inebriated discobrains occasionally compel you to buy a shawarma sandwich instead of a bag of fries? Hell no! We've just shopped around all the nice goodies those strangers brought along, and we have conveniently fished out the things we like and grafted them onto the culture that was already there. The Turkish grocer, the shawarma sandwich, the iftar --- but also Argentinean tango and Texas line-dancing --- it has all become a part of our own culture. Foreign cultural assets that seem uninteresting to us, are left untouched.

So in practice it turns out that multiculturalism (or whatever you wish to call it) only exists by the grace of a very shallow interest in other cultures. Multiculturalist have decided that through their sophisticated and arrogant meddling, everything and everyone should be included in the richly textured cultural quilt that they are so keen on sowing together. But the cultural quilt that has been created isn't a multiculture at all. It is just *our* little toy. It is *our* sample plate of exotic textures, colours, images and tastes, which we are free to choose from. All those so-called "other cultures" have first been dragged neatly through our post-modern slaughterhouse, their fashionable relevance assessed, and have finally been deboned, stripped and dried. They have become cute little icons, small styles, sleeves we can put on or off as we wish. Tamed, toothless, and ready to spice up *our* movies, commercials, music clips and cuisine as much as we please.

Paradoxically, it turns out that multiculturalism --- that loves to see Western culture disappear --- only works because our Western culture is so richly developed and textured. Because our own culture has become so all-encompassing, we are able to effortlessly absorb other cultural expressions, and employ them to supply our *own* culture with new and interesting ways to express itself. Multiculturalists are under the impression that this process will deteriorate Western culture, while simultaneously empower and honour the foreign culture, but it's just the other way around: it is Western culture that acquires more meat on its bones and grows even stronger. It's the foreign culture that is left by the side of road like half-eaten roadkill.

Because foreign cultures are not asked a bloody thing. They're not asked about how they feel. They'll just have to put up with the fact that we cut up their traditional dishes with wraps and crabsticks to feed our lust for hip fusion cooking. They'll just have to put up with the fact that their holy war dances end up in a Michael Jackson video clip; that their ceremonial dresses are used to advertise our fabric softeners; that the images of their gods end up as a disposable background in our latest videogames. Multiculturalism exists solely for *our* benefit; to tell *us* how decent we are; to serve *us* as a moral [yardstick] with which to measure up our little self-serving souls. That is the maximum extent of our multicultural interest.

And so: immigrants, allochtones and garden-variety muslims! See and understand! You were only received with open arms to take part as exotic extras in our great white morality play. That is why you need to be watered, fertilized and bound up like a greenhouse flower: you see, you are only politically interesting in the role of the ultimate victim, so that you can be used by white marxists to move white non-marxists to guilt-conscious obedience. Do you understand there are people deriving power from your disadvantaged position? Do you realize that multiculturalists only guard over your interests because you are the cannon-fodder in their battle against bourgeois society? Do you understand that you will not go anywhere in our Western societies as long as multiculturalism is professed by our government? Do you understand that allochtone driving lessons and subsidized Arab subtitles will eventually not help you get ahead even one step?