With the really hardcore types, the Heritage Foundation bottom-feeders, the Free Republic types, and the Ayn Rand Institute dimwits, they usually say it’s ‘self-evident’, which is what people always say when they don’t feel like defending their argument with evidence. Just look at all the great artists, scientists, and thinkers of European ancestry, they say: it’s perfectly obvious that there are more of these than there are non-Europeans of the same level of accomplishment. Critics of multiculturalism who wish to seem more intelligent or tolerant usually take a faux-humble approach, admitting that sure, there’s been great men from almost every culture, but they ‘can’t help but notice’ how many of them came from Europe or the US as compared to everywhere else.
So how does this happen, exactly?
Well, let’s start by comparing two great playwrights: England’s William Shakespeare, and China’s Xi Zhiyang. Is Shakespeare better than Zhiyang? Of course he is, because I just made Zhiyang up. Do you know why? Because I don’t know any great Chinese playwrights. Does this mean there aren’t any? Nope It means I’ve never encountered any in the course of my education (either higher or self-; interestingly, despite the fact that conservatives love to claim that our universities are swarming with PC thugs who have driven the traditional canon to ground, I came out of two years of studying literature and philosophy in college with a head full of almost exclusively dead white males). If I were, say, Chinese, this would almost certainly not be the case. But due to several centuries of European hegemony throughout the globe – which, it is helpful to remember, was the result of the application of brute force, not any kind of cultural superiority – the western cultural paradigm was imposed everywhere. This means that it’s considered perfectly appropriate for the University of Bejing’s literature department to devote a big chunk of their resources to teaching Shakespeare, whereas at Harvard University, the study of a non-imaginary equivalent of Xi Zhiyang is considered an academic fringe activity, the province of a tiny number of incredibly obscure experts. It is the height of absurdity for an American cultural pundit, who hasn’t read any Chinese playwrights, doesn’t know how to speak Chinese, and more than likely doesn’t know very much about Shakespeare to claim that western art is, de facto and de jure, superior to other forms of art.
The scientific argument seems more airtight – because, hey, look at all the neat gadgets and inventions the west came up with! It’s self-evident! -- but the closer you look, the more rife with built-in excuses and qualifications it becomes. It’s started to completely fall apart in recent years, what with Indian mathematicians winning shitloads of Nobel Prizes, the Chinese sending people into space, and every other computer job being staffed by someone from the Middle East, but that’s answered by the claim that it was the West that got us there. When it’s pointed out that it was the Japanese who took American technology after WWII and made it better, cheaper and faster, someone dismisses it as mere copying, as if the man who designed the Rolls Royce Silver Ghost is but a monkey-see compared to the caveman who discovered the wheel. Meanwhile, when it’s pointed out that the Arabs developed algebra or the Chinese invented gunpowder, they’re derided for not doing anything with them, and that the real credit goes to westerners who used them to greater effect. Not only is this the exact opposite of the previous argument, but it privileges practicality in a curiously inconsistent manner. The golden age of science and medicine that the Arab world experienced during Europe’s Dark Age is generally dismissed because the Arabs borrowed widely from others – as if western scientists never did the same, as if the Arabs weren’t largely borrowing from Africans, Asians and other Arabs rather than westerners. And it’s not even considered worth talking about that Europe financed much of their scientific and technological progress through the exploitation of resources, money and labor of the non-European world.
Even the philosophical/political argument is pretty weak. Even leaving aside the notion that we can’t really claim that westerners invented democracy and individualism, merely that they put it into practice sooner – so what? Naturally, I think democracy and consent are better than autocracy and compulsion, but the persistence of the latter in the Eastern and Western worlds seem to argue otherwise. Besides, democracy tends to triumph only in conjunction with force of arms; the defeat of Nazism didn’t come because the Germans were so sick of fascist rule, it came because we blew them up with bombs. I’m willing to argue ‘til I’m blue in the face that representative democracy and individual rights are superior to any other form of social governance, but I’m not willing to argue, contrary to thousands of years of historical counter-example, that westerners have some sort of exclusive predilection for them. Had the Chinese had more imperial designs, we’d all be talking about how the east is just naturally more prone to embrace the glorious superiority of collectivism, and had the Allies less money and resources, we’d all be talking about the sad case of Russia and their racial inability to recognize how much better fascism is than communism.
The great mistake of the anti-PC uniculturalist crowd isn’t claiming that democracy is better, or that western science has improved the world, or that Shakespeare was a great writer. Their great mistake is failing to recognize why they are able to make those claims.