Thursday, March 7, 2019
Diversity and Multiculturalism Essay
Minority is a word describing a crowd representing a population smaller than the State. They ar people of distinct burnish, religion, language and ethnicalality from the norms of the Society. Any throng resembling the stated characteristics is a Minority. This description clearly emphasizes the rebuttal of Human Rights to people who argon non living within the standards of the society. Group Rights or Minority Rights, in a popular manner, speaks of the Ethnic discrimination to some and a due upright to new(prenominal)s. Moreover, a conflict begins when an person claims of his/her minority ag root word and yet, the State does non recognize a Minority.The ag crowd rights tend to protect a original conference and reflects the separate laws excluded on their existence, which for some individuals is a direct discrimination. Primarily, rights atomic number 18 powers to act in accordance with the existing system having values and principles okay by the society. It is a cla im or title, whether legal, descriptive and moral (Sutton, 2001). The brawl exists regarding group rights on the term called Multiethnicalism. This soma of group right ofttimes pertains to a member of an ethnic or unearthly group.Scholars perceive this kind of group right as a barrier to the marchs that most ethnic groups affirm before there was nicety. It is a mannequin of subjection because the absolute legal age fend fors those conventional whims and pursues the so-called reachity to such(prenominal) people. Group rights exist to discriminate, contravene and eliminate the traditional acts for the satisfaction of the majority. MULTICULTURALISM Multiculturalism is the opinion that all cultures, from tribesmen and modern civilizedization, to be equal. However, equality does non address the century old problem because of assorted conditions. Thus, multiculturalism confers with egalitarianism.The objective of multiculturalism is to obliterate the value of free, indu strialized civilization, by declaring such civilization no better than the primitive tribalism. It emergencys to incapacitate the minds capacity to variantiate good from evil, to differentiate life promoting to what life is negating. Some oppose this principle because they reason out that everyone has a right to moral judgment. The ideas and culture of a specific residential area should receive recognition and respect. ISSUES ON MULTICULTURALISM many forefront how the individuals would respect such minority rights if the problem remains on cultural differences.The argument of the multiculturalists asserters is that all cultures atomic number 18 equal and some factors attack from this culture are overlord to the universal values. Some fruits of Enlightenment and egalitarian movements root from the cultural proponents. Colorful ethnic attire and interesting culinary art may chafferm interesting and attractive. Nevertheless, with the reality of women and childrens oppressio n worldwide, multiculturalism is increasingly a policy to maintain that oppression (Kamguian, 2005). The crimes against women become the celebration of traditional cultures and religions with the ignorance on it disadvantages.Governments of Western foundation utilized the policy of multiculturalism in the past, which advocate and uphold the demands for group rights coming from native populations, ethnic minorities or religious groups. However, these cultures have societal cultures that employ members of meaningful ways of life across the full range of forgiving activities, including social, educational, religious, and recreational life. Because these societal cultures play an of the essence(p) role in the lives of members and because these cultures face extinction, they should have special rights for breastplate.This accord with group rights but that is not the case with the societal norms like slavery, female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor killing and other horror s respected by the society. These august practices are within the multicultural principle but it the good action is to eradicate it. The argument begins with multiculturalism, which acts as a substitute policy to train a tolerant and democratized compliance in a world that conflicts in the midst of cultures eradicate such values. Moreover, the argument leads to racialism and tyranny, as the dominant group want to create a universal norm. other argument consists of the human basic need for cultural attachments. This need so should have protection from validating and protecting different cultures. The financial supporters of multiculturalism contrast that individual rights is sufficient bounteous for protection of minority cultures or their way of life that has a case of having special group rights and privileges such as arbitrations from Sharia in Canada and allowances fro bigamous men in France. In other cases, group rights claim to have political exclusions, govern their p rinciples and exempt them from the general law.Often, cultures are patriarchal and many cultures claim group rights are more patriarchal than the surrounding cultures. Examples are the common gender inequalities like child marriages, forced marriages, divorce systems unilateral against women, polygamy and clitoridoctomy. These cases violate women and childrens individual rights of the society. This respect for cultural traditions resulted to lack of support and voices for women and children and the marginalization of progressive forces. When one observes the culture of these minority groups, they would see how oppression and repression reside within their own communities.Not all cultures are equal even though humans possess culture, some may be better that the other cultures and others may possess values unacceptable to the society. indeed the very idea of equality is the product of the Enlightenment and the political and smart revolutions that it unleashed (Kamguian, 2005). Forc ing equality means to challenge accepted practices and believing in hatchway of transformation. However, permitting the differences by the dominant culture is the acceptance of the society as a whole. The transition movement is not imparting knowledge to students, but promoting racial discrimination. Michael S. Berliner racialism is a notion directing one race as superior to another race. The affirmative action viewed by some is a form of ethnic variety show, a form of politically correct disguise. The belief of racism is that ones convictions, values and character is particularly based on anatomy or blood and not by judgment. This view tends to see people of different pigmentation as different from the superior pigmentation. The spread of racism causes destruction of the individual in ones mind. This individual then clings to another race, wanting to have that belongingness because of race diversity.Proponents of diversity seem to be the true racists because they see the world through the color of lens, hair and skin. To multiculturalists, values, persuasion and human identity all cling to race. Multiculturalism establishes the oppression in equality. Proponents of diversity teach the youth that people having different cultures also have different capacities resulting to recognition of separatism and glorifying a specific race. This revolutionizes racial identity that aims to resurrect an unbridgeable perception on race differences.Hence, any cooperation between races is out of the question because of their differences being emphasized. ETHNICITY AND GROUP RIGHTS The Ethnic Group has group rights that defend their members who want to exercise their right to behave and enables them to act diversely from the majority. The ethnic group supports their group rights and their representatives, subsequently. It is unnecessary and undesirable to put these rights in a metaphysical entity, which bear their independent human characteristics. In addition, the right in question resorts to be a negative claim. The majority should not forbid such groups to defend their rights.In fact, for the reason that they have the utmost power in defense, they should assist the minority to respect and bear the minority rights in a positive way. However, this can apply to a situation where the ethnic group does a grave misconduct not prevented by the existing come ups and regulations. Another is that the ethnic group should observe the group rights, voluntarily and autonomously. People cannot defend a right not chosen by them. Sutton defines that in state to enact such rights they must show the capacity to understand to prosperous claimants (Sutton, 2001, p 21).The ethnic group rights should correspond with the human rights, as it would unfold them the right to protect such liberties whenever the majority, which also has human rights, opposes their ethnic habits. Nonetheless, the civil impropriety of individuals and ethnic group rights come from the princ iple of prima facie rights, which explains the liberty experienced by the ethnic group due to these rights has limitations whenever the ethnic habits chatter grave suffering or serious trimions of liberty on other human beings.In general, the obligation of the majority has a responsibleness not to restrict freedom when they wish to observe termsless habits and if the majoritys opposition puts a grave suffering to the ethnic group, then, they have to restrict such opposition (Hayry, 2007). Ethnic minorities do not have a group right to force or coerce their members into observing duties, which are not required by the principles of liberty and the avoidance of suffering (Hayry, 2007).Individuals have three duties, the duty not to inflict harm to another individual, the duty not to restrict unreasonably the freedom of others and the duty not to bump voluntary, harmless contracts. The first duty means for the individuals to act accordingly to the rule of the group without coercing such right. The argument then is the term ethnic group coerces their right because they did not choose the term themselves but a group pass on not defend a right not make by them. Hence, the general implication is to coerce such freedom, which they themselves have not freely assumed.The second duty restricts any enforcement of freedom, which proves to be unnecessary to the ethnic group. The majority would see that being a member of a minority group would enforce the second duty that is false in belief that will alter the norms. Conversely, everyone has the duty to restrict or condemn habits that will impose suffering and unwarranted restrictions of freedom. In general, the second argument gives the majority the right to restrict ethnic habits given that it will impose harm to the society but it should exceed the principles of equality and fairness.Most of the majority will regard the thesis of defense concerning ethnic habits, which they find different from the norms, false. This i s natural, as the dominant groups want a homogenous society supplying the top hat foundation for human flourishing, even if it costs the principle of liberty and avoidance of suffering. Nonetheless, the significant patterns that endow social conformity should have actions in eliminating cultural diversity (Hayry, 2007). INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM The principle on individualism is the individual as the primary unit of reality and the ultimate preference of value.Contrary to what other opinions say, individualism does not deny the existence of a society or else the society as a group of individuals not above those individuals. individualisation sees every person as the end of himself and there should be no sacrifice of an individual for another (Stata, 1992). The achievement of an individual credits for himself/herself and not based on the achievements of others. Even though the society believes of individualism as isolation, it does not deny the cooperation but is a the ory of the conditions living and on the job(p) with other people as beneficial.In general, individualism gives credit to an individual and not on the individuals membership with a society. The verisimilar cure for racial differences is individualism or seeing the person not because of his/her race but because of his/her abilities. The diversity movement aims to teach the following diversity awareness, diversity training, diversity hiring and submissions and diversity accommodations, which all refer to racial preference. The proper dose on racial issues is to appreciate individually and treatment of incorporated merits (Locke, 2000). CONCLUSIONProtection of human rights in various fields becomes get down in the past century. Many have resulted to war, as they protect their community from discrimination and sustenance of group rights. Before group rights, many institutions protected the safety of minorities. Three major items existed in favor of minority group rights. The first period appeared in a non-systematic protection comprising mainly of incorporation of protective clauses, particularly in favor of religious minorities. The second period existed after World War I within the framework of the alliance of Nations.Lastly are the developments following World War II (Lerner, 2003) on group rights. With all these developments in minorities and group rights, still the existing justness on racial discrimination is emerging. Many say of diversity as an act of racism, that employing group rights does not prove to be efficient in eradicating discrimination. Briefly, group rights is not a power rather a suppression, racial diversity and oppression hiding in equality.ReferencesBerliner, M. Diversity and Multiculturalism. 24 whitethorn 2000 14 November 2007 Sutton, P. Kinds of Rights in Country Recognising Customary Rights as Incidents of Native Title. 2001. 14 November 2007 p. 29 National Native Title Tribunal. Hayry, H. Ethnicity and Group Rights, Individual Liberties and disgraceful Obligations. 14 November 2007 Minority. 14 November 2007 Kamguian, A.Universal Rights versus Individual Rights. 6 July 2005 14 November 2007 acculturation and Multiculturalism. 14 November 2007 Locke, E. Individualism The Only Cure for Racism. 12 December 1997 14 November 2007 Lerner, N. Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law. Boston Martinus Nihjoff Publishers, 2003.