July 22rd, 2011, a horrible terror happened in Norway and frustrated entire Norway and the global world. Since Norway was known as a neutral and peaceful country, the shock was even more intense. Later, the terrorist confessed that his massacre was related to the conflict between the ideologies of nationalism and multiculturalism. This essay will explain about the Norway massacre more thoroughly, bring up the issue of nationalism and multiculturalism, and suggest the importance of balance between the two ideologies.
The terror can be classified to two incidents. The first incident is the Oslo bombing. A car that carried bombs was installed on a road in an area where the government office buildings were clustered. The car exploded and gave a great impulse. The windows of the buildings around the car were all broken. Eight people were dead. Norwegians were all shocked, and the police forces were concentrated in the area.
However, the bombing was only a bait for the next incident. The next terror happened in Utoya Island. Utoya Island is 30km far away from Oslo. In the island, students who were dreaming to be politicians were participating in a political summer camp organized by the Labor Party. The camp provided 560 teenagers opportunities to learn politics and meet the Norwegian politicians. However, nobody in the camp had known that they were targets of a terrorist. At the day, the students encountered the news about the Oslo bombing and were frustrated. Then, a man with policeman uniform appeared, and gathered the camp members. He said that he was going to tell the members about the Oslo bombing and the safety of the camp. However, suddenly, he started to shoot automatic rifle to the students. He used dumdum bullet, which was forbidden in the international society due to its cruelty. The teenagers panicked. Some dived into the water and tried to escape. The terrorist even aimed and shot at them. Some pretended to be dead. The terrorist shot at them, too. 69 people, mostly teenagers, died. The massacre was unbelievably cruel, deliberate, and planned elaborately.
However, the terrorist turned out to be an ordinary Norwegian citizen called Anders Behring Breivik. He did not participate in any terrorist groups. However, he was a right-wing extremist, and a Christian extremist. He considered Islam, cultural Marxism, and feminism as an enemy. He had uploaded Internet materials that proposed his opinion about nationalism and anti-Islam. He also had a contact with English Defense League, which establishes right-wing street protest movement against the Islam. He was so profound in his belief that he declared his massacre as “atrocious but necessary”.
In the court, he claimed that the purpose of his crime was to save Norway and Western Europe from cultural Marxism and Islam, to convey a clear message, and to limit future workforce of the Labor Party. He thought that Labor Party betrayed Norway and the people. Breivik seemed to be deeply infatuated in nationalism. He strongly disagreed with the multicultural policies of the present Norwegian government, which accepted non-European cultures including Islam. Therefore, the massacre can be attributed to the conflict between the ideologies of nationalism and multiculturalism. Then, what are nationalism and multiculturalism?
First, nationalism is a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms. A nationalist would exalt his or her nation above all other nations. A nationalist would put the most emphasis on the culture and interest of his or her nation, and neglect other cultures. A nationalist policy would discriminate foreigners and immigrants in jobs, educations, insurances, and other social conveniences.
Next, multiculturalism is the appreciation, acceptance, and promotion of multiple cultures. Multiculturalism accepts diversity of cultures, religions, and races, and encourages interaction and communication between different cultures. A multiculturalist policy would treat immigrants and natives equally, and would respect the diverse cultures of the foreigners.
Nationalism has three advantages. First, nationalism attempts social cohesion with the nation. By putting most emphasis on the culture and interest of the nation, nationalism makes the members of the nation unite more firmly. The cohesion would encourage the members to cooperate, and would lead to improvement of efficiency. Next, nationalism protects traditional cultures. Nowadays, in many countries, the western cultures flow in and destroy the unique conventional cultures. However, a nationalist view would ostracize the foreign cultures, and therefore protect the traditional cultures. Finally, a nationalist policy would cause decrease of crime and increase of jobs for the people in the nation. Foreigners, who are minority in the society, commit crimes often, due to the conflict of different cultures. For example, in Korea, there are more than 600 violence organizations of foreigners from fourteen countries including China and Vietnam. Therefore, intolerance to foreigners would cause decrease of crimes committed by foreigners. In addition, since lots of foreigners immigrate to get jobs, the native people lose opportunities to be employed. A non-nationalist policy protects the foreigners’ rights to be employed. Meanwhile, a nationalist policy would put effort to expand the opportunity for the native people to get jobs, instead of the foreigners.
Multiculturalism also has three advantages. First, multiculturalism shows respect for diverse cultures. A culture cannot be superior or inferior to another culture. In other words, a standard that determines superiority of cultures does not exist. Therefore, all cultures should be respected, and all societies should pursue multiculturalism. Next, multiculturalism creates value from accepting diverse cultures. Fusion of diverse cultures would generate more creative and unique culture. An ideal form of multiculturalism would accept the advantages of diverse cultures and fuse them to make a better society. Finally, multiculturalist policies do not discriminate foreigners and immigrants. All humans are equal, and all humans should be given the fundamental rights, regardless of their nation. Therefore, discriminating foreigners are morally inadequate. A society should pursue multiculturalism to be morally mature.
Since nationalism and multiculturalism both have advantages and disadvantages that conflict each other, politicians ponder and debate about the issue. For example, Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister from the Labor Party, advocates multiculturalism. Even after the Norway massacre, he declared that “Norway is still an ‘open society’ despite the horror.” The quote shows his resolute belief on multiculturalism. However, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is on the side of nationalism. He said, “We were so worried about the identity of the immigrants that we were too negligent towards our own.” Considering that he is a son of an immigrant from Hungary, he seems to be deeply disappointed to the multiculturalist policies. The conflict between the ideologies of nationalism and multiculturalism is still ongoing.
As the Norway massacre had clearly shown, extreme multiculturalism would generate complaint from nationalists, and eventually a terror. However, extreme nationalism would also cause horror, as the history of Nazis had proven. Therefore, a society needs balance between the two positions. Obviously, a society cannot avoid multiculturalism in such a globalized society. However, considering the identity and cohesion within the nation, nationalism is also not negligible. Thus, a society should take both sides, and prudently make policies that balance the two ideologies most adequately. In a society with ideologies conflicting so severely with each other, balance and moderation are the most important virtues.
Reference
KBS Documentary: “노르웨이 테러, 충격의 그 날”
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기