Oh, I see: because they're all of a category, you assume they're all together. There are always those who transcend their times, and even within movements, there is variation.
No. My statement applied to your assertion that re-interpreting the past in a modern form is a method of promoting modernity.
Your reading of Joyce is too easy. If we think Joyce endorses multiculturalism we should re-read "After the Race," or consider Stephen's reflections, in Portrait, that he must reach the Irish youth before its blood is corrupted by Englithness. As pertains to Ulysses, we should reconsider the subtlety of the Cylops episode. Let us not forget that the encounter between Bloom and the Citizen is narrated by an unnamed Dubliner, himself of doubtless political persuasion. Let us not forget that Joyce has considerable sympathy for the Citizen's criticisms. Let us not forget that despite his utopian daydreams of New Bloomusalem, Bloom himself frequently professes a dignified pride in being Irish, and in his actions - for example, his donation at Dignam's funeral - is easily the most socially (nationally?) responsible character in the novel. Let us not forget that while Bloom considers Israel the “sunken grey cunt of the world” he brandishes his cigar at the Citizen in response to his anti-Semitism. Yes, the novel is humane, but its "humanism" is broader than what you mean by that term.
Bloom is an androgynous everyperson, and in that a prophet, like Christ, or Tiresias. I do not agree that his life is a failure.
Joyce rails against ideological monovision (e.g cyclopean nationalism) by presenting a narrative in which both sides of any given "issue" are visible. As such, he resists sententious summary. Except, that is, by reality(tm) wielding nihilistic cyclops men who, just like Bloom, spill their seed all over the ground.
(& didn’t someone get punished for that?)
*listens to the thunder*
Datta? Dayadhvam? Damyata?
Stephonan: gragh! (Terrified)
Bloom: Just a noise in the sky.
Stephonan: (calmed) Shantih. Shantih. Shantih.