- The Washington Times - Sunday, September 9, 2001

Traveling in Italy and France over the past few weeks, questions of culture inevitably pervade one's thoughts. Focusing on no more than three experiences — St. Mark's in Venice, the Dome of Milan, and the collections at the Louvre in Paris — is quite sufficient to make one wonder what the multiculturalists have in mind.
Presumably, many who mouth the words have nothing in particular in mind, except a political slogan that has become fashionable. But multiculturalism's true prophets do imply something specific. For public and media consumption, they will explain that all groups of humans possess culture; that all cultures are equally valid, important and valuable; that a process of cultivation is not a prerequisite for a culture to emerge; and that attributing importance to one thing or another is merely a matter of conditioning.
Now, unless one is totally uninformed and lacks exposure to the treasures of humanity, the foregoing thesis is manifestly at odds with reality. But it may be explained as a well-meaning attempt at being "inclusive."
Is it?
The key to this discussion, of course, is the term "treasures of humanity." Indeed, a visit to the three wings of the Louvre will persuade anyone about the changing spotlights of history illuminating different areas of the globe in different periods. There was a time for Hammurabi's 282 laws to be carved in basalt, and a time for Vermeer to paint the Lacemaker. For the true humanist, the exhibits represent the pre-eminent accomplishments of humanity, and it gladdens the eye to observe so much of humanity coming to visit every day.
Presumably, again, those hostage to Karl Marx's outrage of viewing history as a series of class conflicts are unable to see the world in terms of transcendent human achievement, belonging to all. They force themselves to see everything, if not as class struggle, then one between continents and colors, as in European (white), African (black), or Indian (red?). Little do they care that lily-white Swedes and Norwegians flock to Italy (inhabited by people generally of black hair and darker skin), and not the other way around. And they do not seem to notice that the Swiss from the heart of Europe visit the same cathedrals as the Japanese or the Ethiopians.
Although, perhaps they do. And that is the troubling thought. Those who have been exposed to true greatness and permit their brains to function must know the same things the rest of us do. The examples here come from the visual arts, but the same is true about literature or music. Yet separate buildings have been designated to house African-Americans, Native American, and Women's "cultures." And then we are told they are "equal" in importance.
But if they are, why not make them a part of the general collections interested parties habitually visit?
Where did they get the idea of "separate but equal"? Upon reflection, it sends shivers down one's spine.
After the struggles of centuries, decades past all the epoch-making civil rights legislation, have we gone back to Jim Crow in our cultural establishment? Is multiculturalism Jim Crow under a different name?
By way of illustration, the multicultural debate is whether Leontyne Price belongs with "women" or with "African-Americans." But surely, the place she has earned is in the distinguished lineup of great operatic sopranos.
We talk about the crime of not teaching slaves to read and write. We chastise our ancestors for placing obstacles in the path of real education for black Americans. At last, the door was opened wide. Good laws protected the right of every American to learn as much as the person's ability permitted. For many a black family, it was the first opportunity to partake in culture as high as the eye can see.
But then the prophets rose and said, "This is not your culture. Don't read the great books of others; don't listen to the great music of others; don't gaze at the paintings of others. Stay with your own. Keep it separate — we will call it equal."
The prophets know perfectly well that St. Mark's in Venice, the Dome of Milan, or the contents of the Louvre have no equals in "African-American culture," "Native American culture" or "Women's culture" — nor indeed in Scandinavian, Portuguese, Romanian or Serbian culture, even though the latter are in Europe. Worst of all, these "prophets" themselves know exactly the benefits of great literature, music, art. Apparently, they wish to keep away those who would most need those benefits.
In the meantime, we are losing generations. Is there some way we could set aside party differences and rededicate our schools to the preservation and dissemination of everything that is truly outstanding, and everything that is the common treasure of humanity? Americans representing every shade of skin tone have died for the preservation of what is good in the world. Surely, we could come together and work for the sake of that which is truly great.

Balint Vazsonyi, concert pianist and director of the Center for the American Founding, is a columnist for The Washington Times and is nationally syndicated.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide