Post 6 - Political Correctness and Race

While mass immigration gives rise to many genuine economic and social concerns, there is something about discussion of the topic that generates a sense of unease. This underlying issue is a sensitive one and requires a great deal of attention. Focusing on the economic impacts and social ramifications of foreign immigration into “white” nations is inevitably seen by many as an attempt to distract from the role race plays in the debate. Critics of mass immigration in the politically correct Western nations are often dismissed as racist or xenophobic in their intent. While no one can deny that this is indeed the case for some extremist groups, it still presents a sort of ethical dilemma regarding freedom of speech and how issues of race should be addressed in society.

 With the best of intentions, many European parliaments have resorted to passing several “anti-hate” laws to combat those who seek to incite violence against any specific group of people. This came about in the wake of the Second World War as leaders of the new European Union set out on a project of “purging Europe’s individual countries of nationalism.” This effort was largely successful and patriotic rhetoric became increasingly exclusive to radical rightwing hooligan types. Speaking out in defense of cultural heritage or expressing doubts about the benefits of introducing multiculturalism into a society is tantamount to heresy and can even be punished as a crime. However, as time goes on, more and more people are failing to be convinced by “political correctness.” Champions of politically correct thinking often take stances that more and more citizens find utterly ridiculous. Caldwell gives the examples of Dutch groups campaigning against traditional Christmas narratives and Christians being arrested for citing biblical arguments against homosexuality. Caldwell goes on to claim that “a new, uncompromising ideology was advancing under cover of its own ridiculousness – not as the Big Lie of legend, perhaps, but as something similarly ominous that might be called the Big Joke. As anyone could see, its advance was also accompanied by intimidation and fear.”

I would argue that the obligation that post war Europeans felt they had to create a more universal and less chauvinistic society was, at its core, a good thing. However, any type of value system is a product of the cultural characteristics of the people themselves. A ruling establishment can only maintain such a value system if the people see it as legitimate. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli might comment that legitimacy can be acquired through the good will of citizens or taken by violent force. According to the gospel of Matthew, the legitimacy of a worldview can be determined by examining its results. Matthew warns us “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” Many in Europe are beginning to see the worsening economic and social situation as a sign that the politically correct values of the EU establishment might not deserve their endorsements. This backlash against the current regime can be seen in the rise of populist rightwing political parties and the growing fame of revisionist figures like Vladimir Putin.

Those who criticize mass immigration, at least the more outspoken critics, tend to fall on the right side of the political spectrum. Groups like the Golden Dawn in Greece as well as ultra-rightwing groups across Europe make no qualms about the relationship between race and their opposition to the influx of foreigners. This moral stance caused me to investigate the biblical stance of ethno-nationalism.

While reading an article by David Opperman titled “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism,” I discovered that the Greek word used to describe nations in scripture was ethnos – from which we get the word ethnicity. Opperman goes on to write that “raceless or tribeless societies become decadent due to anonymity and loss of patriarchal authority, which is inevitable in these regimes. When people forget their ancestors they will not regard their children and future descendants!” Apparently the bible doesn’t provide any normative ethical opposition to the concept of ethno-nationalism as the foundation of a state. Several books frequently emphasize the ethnic identity of Israel and all other nations. A major claim Opperman makes in his conclusion is that “The foundation of a Biblical nation as defined in the Table of Nations is derived from common ancestry, common religion, common history, and common customs, and mutually possessed ideas and values will be built upon this foundation.”

As I stated in my previous post, I believe that all of the natural diversity of life is all part of the same creation that embodies the will of God. I think it is a great tragedy that history has linked nationalism, a force that has the potential for so much good in the world, with chauvinism and racism. Pride in one’s ancestry, history and traditions can be used to encourage social harmony within a nation while providing a sense of security that promotes mutual understanding between nations.