At which point does the majority stop catering to the various ethnic groups (minorities) within its borders?

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,

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,