Transcripts

SPEAKER 1: Now, you've read Schlesinger's book on multiculturalism. What do you what do you think? Are his criticisms valid?

SPEAKER 2: To be perfectly honest, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

SPEAKER 1: Why so?

SPEAKER 2: I think he knows better. This is disingenuous on his part. I think the thesis of the book blames the wrong people. I think Mr. Schlesinger knows full well that these tensions have always been in our society, and they've ebbed and flowed throughout the history of America, and to the extent that he's indicting anybody. He's indicting the wrong people.

I think that the people he's indicting are people who have fought to expand the Democratic Creed. He's reduced that to a handful of people who are called Afrocentrists and making them the focus, creating another kind of boogeyman.

But, in fact, Mr. Schlesinger should appreciate history. He's an historian. And I think Richard Wright had it put it well, is that perhaps if African-Americans and others had been allowed to make their natural contribution to the Democratic process, not only would things be different, I think they would be healthier.

He is, I just think, doing a lot of unfair labeling in this work, among other things. It's beneath his level of scholarship. It amounts to some sort of harangue.

SPEAKER 1: But isn't there a danger that we are focusing so much on the differences that exist among people in this country that we're losing sight of the common good?

SPEAKER 2: Yeah, I actually think that that's always been a reality that's not acknowledged. And I think that is a possibility. I think anything is possible, but that's always been possible. There are some things changing in the demographics that have not a lot to do with what he's talking about.

Whenever you have great waves of immigration to this country, you have a certain bit of social dislocation and discomfort. But what we're talking about is a story and a struggle as old as America itself, and that is the struggle for Democratic rights in America, not so much for the rights of Black people, although that's the essence of their struggle. That's what connects them to any people in this country who have been a part of the excluding populations.

And I think that people like-- intellectuals like Mr. Schlesinger are, in effect, dishonest and labeling. Of course, there's a possibility that anything could happen in this country. It's that kind of country. It's tension-ridden, always has been race-ridden, always has been pluralistic, multicultural in nature. What we're trying to do is to reconceptualize what people call the melting pot, which was obviously a myth because some people could never really get into the pot.

And I don't think anybody ever melted as well as we'd like to think they have. This is still-- without talking about people of color, this is a heterogeneous country among Europeans who agree on an ideology, but there are still 233 different ways to be a Christian among European people. People still cling to their ethnicity in various ways, and they're allowed to do that under the Democratic Creed.

It seems when others want to do the same thing, then we bring up this boogeyman about people creating a schism in this country to the extent--

SPEAKER 1: So you don't think people, at least traditionally, have focused more on-- they come to this country focused primarily on where they came from, but after a while-- the myth is that once they get here and been here for a while, well, they tend to focus on being an American, as opposed to Italian, American--

SPEAKER 2: I couldn't agree with you more. This is a house of refuge for most people who've come to America. It's also a house of bondage. And there is a difference. That makes a difference in people's perception. And we can't play with history and culture like you play with taking off your clothes. I mean, this is a long experience.

And there's nothing you and I can do about the fact that for most Europeans, this has been a land of freedom and opportunity. I don't dispute with that. But it's also a very oppressive country for people of African descent, from the Indigenous people who were made foreigners the minute the Constitution was established.

So we have to be honest about this, and I don't think Mr Schlesinger is being honest. That is the point that I argue against. He acknowledges that people in part of his book have been oppressed, and he indicts the White leadership matter of factly and then tends to make them a footnote. But I think that what was happening yesterday is happening today, more or less.

I don't think there are competing ideologies in this country. There's one ideology. There is one ideology. There's nothing to challenge the ideology of White supremacy, unless you want to talk about Democrats and Republicans representing ideology. And I claim in effect, those two Bourgeois parties represent one ideology.

SPEAKER 1: OK. Last question for you, do you think-- the other criticism he makes is that whether he's right or wrong, he argues, I think, that there isn't even a fair discussion of this in academia because many of the scholars are being muzzled, in effect, by people who are focusing on multiculturalism, political correctness, and the like. Is that true?

SPEAKER 2: No. I think it's exaggerated beyond the usual exaggeration when people make those claims. That may be some truth to that, but by and large, nobody is muzzled. I've been around academia for a little while and a lot of colleges, I just don't see that. I think that's overstated. Whatever that reality is, that certainly, people who are from the right, so to speak, are not being muzzled.

And what do you mean by politically correct? That's almost a nonsense term. Was it before politically incorrect, or what are you talking about? I think these are terms and words that are thrown out there to generate confusion because, as the French writer says, language is like god turned loose into flesh.

You can create a word for reality that don't even exist, and this is the case with the thing about political correctness and so forth. What you're looking at is an action-reaction principle in this country. What is the central question in America is whether or not it can expand itself, allow itself to become human enough to respect the dignity and humanity of the historically-excluded populations in this country.

And they are the Indigenous people. They are Africans. They are Indigenous Hispanics, not Hispanics from Central America, but I'm talking about Mexican people. And they have not been able to accommodate the democracy, however much we've changed. You can always qualify that change. And I think that's the central question, not afrocentrist or multiculturalist.

I have my own criticisms of multiculturalism. I don't think there's any depth to it, or breadth. So I can level my criticisms at that, too. But that doesn't mean that what Mr. Schlesinger is arguing and pointing out and haranguing over is true. I just think he is way offcenter. I think he is unfair, and he exaggerates whatever truth there is to his criticisms.