Max Sawicky wrote: This seems to overstate a bit. Multiculturalism (MC) at least superficially is committed to equality in some sense and to tolerance more emphatically. You could say it glosses over power relationships and economic interests that underly racism, in other words it is liberalism rather than radicalism. In that respect it subverts anti-racism, the same way reformism subverts radical analysis.
Miles responded: The fact that it glosses over conflict and inequality makes it a insidious obstacle to the creation of a truly inclusive and democratic society. If we don't explicitly call out and develop strategies to transform systems of institutionalized discrimination, these systems will continue. In many ways, it is much easier to engage in political action against overt racist groups like the KKK. Miles
I agree with Miles of course, but my focus here is somewhat different.
The movemtn of the '60s, like all movements, at a certain point could not go further, had reached what goals it could reach. Multiculturalism was simply a marker of that exhaustion, as was the defeat of ERA, the sectarianism of the New Communist Movement, the flight of radicals to th McGovern campaign of 1972. I don't think it is really of much theoretical interest. It is almost redundant to call it an aspect of neoliberalism, like calling ice cold. If that is all this collection of threads has been about, we might as well have been discussing whether fine-ground or corse-ground cornmeal makes the best corn bread.
Carrol