You will be assimilated.
Posted by Matt Dioguardi on April 21st, 2007
I’ve been very busy of late and haven’t been able to do much with this blog, which is frustrating. There are more than a few comments I’ve been wanting to respond to, but haven’t yet had the chance.One of them raised a new topic, so I’ll make this reply an entry in and of itself.I’m referring to a comment made by David to my post on Lee Soo Im. David has his own blog, called Canapan, please check it out. David said:
In many countries where immigrants were once welcomed with open arms, and multi-culturism was encouraged, “assimilation” is now getting a fresh look. Even in Canada, where the politicians would have us believe multi-culturism is a “Canadian value” the idea that all new immigrants should assimilate is taking hold. Although, I don’t support exclusion, and I don’t agree with the way ethnic Koreans have been treated in Japan, I tend to think everyone would be better off if they simply melted into society.
David,I’m sorry I never responded to this interesting comment.I think you raise an important issue. One problem the Koreans have faced in Japan is that they did not want to assimilate. Here you had one strong ethnic identity at odds with another. One of them clearly in the driver’s seat, and the other not wanting to be taken for a drive. For first and second generation zainichi Koreans, becoming Japanese would have meant a complete loss of identity. I think in many ways, this attitude was understandable given what many Koreans had experienced under colonial rule. But I don’t think in the long run this attitude has been helpful, and I’m glad that people like Lee Soo Im are reaching out there for new paradigms. Lee Soo Im sounds proud to be a Japanese national and an ethnic Korean. (Her husband is Iranian, by the way.) This sounds to me like something new, and maybe the beginning of an important trend.I think problems with assimilation also need to be looked at in terms of the structure of the institutions in place. Some institutions harmlessly encourage integration, others are destined to end up with confrontation. I think socialist programs that attempt to better society unwittingly require assimilation. In a country like Japan, which has a lot of socialist institutions, the form of that assimilation often takes a nationalist color. In another country it might take a more universalist color, but still be just as problematic. Consider education or health care, both what constitutes knowledge and what constitutes health are far more tinged with morality than most people feel comfortable admitting.However, I think when you have liberal policies — and here I mean old fashion liberalism, like free markets and an emphasis on self-autonomy — you get the best of both worlds, pluralism and gradual assimilation. In my opinion, the government should take an active role, *not* in promoting one version of the good, but in making sure each individual can follow their own version of that good while competing with others on a fair and level playing field. A system like this *allows* for a plurality of values, but at the same time sets these values up in competition with each other. It also encourages a lot of interaction through commerce.One can always argue that people really don’t want (or deserve) self-autonomy, but that is an argument that strikes a stake through the heart of any form of self-government.Anyway, I hope in a future to be able to elaborate more on ideas like this, and to provide some relevant material.Best,Matt
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Hi Matt,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. The fact that you dedicated an entire post to it, is quite appreciated.
I think you really touched on something here, when you wrote assimilation needed to be “looked at in terms of the structure of the institutions in place”. It certainly makes sense to me that some ethnic groups/individuals may not be comfortable with what the majority deems to be appropriate forms of health care and education.
However, it brings me to this question, which you may have already addressed in the third paragraph (but I’ll ask anyway). At which point does the majority stop catering to the various ethnic groups (minorities) within its borders?
If you ever get a chance take a look at the debate going on in Canada (mostly in the province of Quebec) these days, concerning “reasonable accommodation”. Both sides have very valid points, but what is interesting to me is that Canada is a country the politicians have designed (since the late 1960’s) to be the kind state that you have described in your third paragraph.
Anyway, I look forward to reading more of your views on this topic, especially in relation to Japan.
Thanks again for the response.
Regards,
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Hi David,
I will try to look at the Canadian case when I have a chance. It’d probably be instructive
I’m tempted to say that the majority should NEVER cater to the minority, but then again, I might be misunderstanding you.
One really does have to look at each country and each case. However, broadly speaking, it’s always up to the (ethnic) minority to make their case in terms of universal human rights.
That is, the minority can’t ask for special treatment because of who they are as a minority, but because of who they are as human beings. No matter how particular the case, the universal ethical principles need to be brought to foreground. It’s those that need to be debated and not the particular case.
Thomas Jefferson, a slave holder, said in regards to the institution of slavery:
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
I think we can remove this argument from its religious context and it still holds. I think it’s a fact that there’s no meaningful difference between people that can be determined on skin color alone. And I think the founders of the American Republic created a sort of logical inconsistency when they said all men are equal, except for those with darker skin. This had to work itself out. Either racism had to prevail or the conceptual framework that went into positing all people are equal (before the law) had to prevail. Eventually. You just couldn’t have both.
Either we want a society where we all share equal rights or we don’t. A society where we don’t all share equal rights is simply one the vast majority of us would never want to live in. So the minority constantly must remind the majority, that while today it might be their rights that are being curbed, tomorrow it might be someone else’s.
We are ALL minorities in regards to something. So when one person’s rights are threatened, all of our rights are threatened.
Best,