Monday
He could have taken his article to this conclusion but perhaps he thought the baggage that would come with it would distract from his intended points. In order for my 'friendly amendment' to make sense, it is important to understand what "multiculturalism" really means. Multiculturalism is not a recent ideology. Only the name is new. Most of you are far more familiar with it as "separate but equal". Wikipedia says:
Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural and religious groups, with equal status.
Separate but equal ... segregationism. Multiculturalism as an ideology is diametrically opposed to integration and assimilation. Some have noted a difference in the formation of terrorists in America as compared with Europe but without necessarily attributing it to America's still comparatively high cultural emphasis and expectation of newcomers to assimilate.
The absence of significant terrorist attacks or even advanced terrorist plots in the United States since Sept. 11 is good news that cannot entirely be explained by increased intelligence or heightened security. It suggests America’s Muslim population may be less susceptible than Europe’s Muslim population, if not entirely immune, to jihadist ideology. In fact, countervailing voices may exist within the American Muslim community.
So what does this have to do with Richard Miniter?
He wrote an excellent article published in The American Legion Magazine reviewing several researcher's findings on what traits terrorists have in common.
Miniter says [my underscore]:
Terrorism is an extension of politics by deadly means. Its goals are inherently political, not economic. The chief aim of most significant terrorist campaigns – from the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka to al-Qaeda – is to force a government to yield sovereign control to the terror group over some slice of territory. ... These are not economic goals, but political ones.
I emphasized that point because wherever control is extended, whether in the banlieues of France, by withdrawal of troops from other regions by Spain, or communities anywhere in the first world where policing is stymied and made ineffective by a cultural barrier, terrorists have achieved their goal and are ready to extend their ambitions.
In his review of the studies, Miniter makes a list of three phases in the making of a terrorist.
Alienation. Sageman’s sample reveals that 80 percent are in some way totally excluded from the society in which they live. They are foreign students who do not fit in, or they are immigrants to Europe who do not assimilate. Seventy percent of the terrorists in Sageman’s sample joined a terror group when they were living outside their home countries.
This is where multiculturalism excels. By preventing pressures for, and benefits of assimilation, multiculturalism creates and entrenches precisely the metrocosms where terrorism best germinates. Healthy societies embrace newcomers. While sometimes sloppy or crude, this social embrace is always far better in the long run than encapsulating aliens in a cocoon of 'respect'. This misguided segregation and self censorship is the surest way to leave people from other cultures feeling alien and unwelcome.
Personal bonds. Eighty-eight percent of terrorists in the Sageman study are related by blood, marriage or friendship to other terrorists. Sixty percent worship at one of 10 mosques worldwide or attended one of two now-closed schools in Indonesia. "You’re talking about a very select, small group of people," Sageman concludes.
Like this one, perhaps? Once a mindset of terrorism has caught flame, it needs protection and encouragement to develop. It benefits from cultural isolation with highly constrained outside contact and networks independent of the host culture. There must be cultural barriers in place that confine bonding and loyalties to the like-minded. Terrorism cannot thrive in a diverse and interactive community where the structure of the society compels interaction with the larger community. We see this also in some communities in the US where it is considered preferable to shield a violent criminal than to 'snitch' to the outside police.
Group dynamics. Once a network of friendships evolves into a cell, certain group dynamics take over. Cell members feel they cannot betray their friends. The suicide bombers in Spain are a perfect example, Sageman writes. "Seven terrorists sharing an apartment and one saying, 'Tonight we’re all going to go, guys.' Individually, they probably would not have done it.
Once the mindset is established and the ambition is formed, it needs to grow, protected, so that it can finish its material and spiritual phase of preparation. It must be located in a place wherethe law and law enforcement is held at bay and, when it cannot be, is at least unable to recognize or understand the dynamics and significance of what little it does see. Terrorism comes from a social group that seals itself against outside discovery and investigation.
Multiculturalism allows each layer of protection to exist like a matryoshka doll. The inner most doll is the terrorist with each of the outer dolls representing another of the necessary shells protecting it. It is this final phase at which most of our interventions are occurring. It should be small consolation to us that we are catching terrorists only after they leave the protection of the many shells and begin taking position for their attack, when we are simultaneously harboring the incubation of a steady supply of them as a consequence of our multicultural policies.
We need to recognize Multiculturalism for what it is. "Separate but equal" in a politically correct wrapper.
Spot on, Midwesterner! I've often commented that, when visiting the USA and happening to meet first generation immigrants, the answer to "where are you from?" is always a very proud "America."
It's not a great leap from that level of belongingness to not wanting to blow it up.
Posted by the other rob at September 10, 2007 06:13 AM
US's strength is that it's a country founded on liberal ideas (=Constitution), instead of loyalty to a specific cultural or ethnic group.
By contrast, you can only be Finnish if your parents were.And their parents.At the least, they should've been white.
Of course, we could put out a decree that says immigrants must wear sweatsuits and frown a lot.Maybe that will help.
Seriously, it will help to assimilate people if they have something to assimilate to.Most nation-states are little more than a form of glorified cousin-fucking.
Posted by Wordly at September 10, 2007 08:28 AM
This misguided segregation and self censorship is the surest way to leave people from other cultures feeling alien and unwelcome.
I think you make very good observations, in sync and with proper extension to Miniter's.
I would like to mention one factor I believe gives some qualification. We simply do not know how many planned attacks have been stopped in America. A couple years ago I read from what appeared to be a credible source a specific number of thwarted attempts which was significant to me -a number I don't recall now. If just a few were successful I wonder if this discussion would place less emphasis on America's ability to assimilate? I'm not disagreeing with your fundamental premise of the alienating nature of multicultural ideology allowing for increased potential but I question if assimilation is 'as good' in our country to inhibit terrorist incentive. I don't doubt it has been a major factor and probably makes us relatively safer than Europe.
Posted by Steevo at September 10, 2007 09:26 AM
Other Rob: how many of them were Muslims?
Mid's points are very well taken. However, for assimilation and integration to work, there has to be a willingness to assimilate and integrate. I don't think I'll surprise anyone by saying that there are people who come to the US for purely material reasons. Nothing wrong with that in itself (I happened to be one of those at the time). Question is, how many of them are willing or even able to identify with its values.
Posted by Alisa at September 10, 2007 09:40 AM
Multiculturalism is just wrong or false.
It says that all cultures are equal. This is not true. Multiculturalism is based on a false assumption.
Posted by Jacob at September 10, 2007 10:34 AM
The assumption of multicultrualism is that all cultures have their own value system and hence it is impossible to pronounce some better or worse according to a universal set of criteria, you have to pick one or another value system and hence your judgement is partial. This is trivially true, but useless as a basis for immigration policy.
Post-modernists are, as my Scottish relative say, the coo's tail. They take obvious truths that normal people figured out when they were very young and got over and spin ridiculous philosophies and political ideologies out of them.
e.g.
"People's opinions are influenced by the background in which they were raised."
"Yeah, no shit sherlock,"
"So there's no such thing as objective truth."
"?"
Posted by Gabriel at September 10, 2007 10:49 AM
Ok, the reason I have always opposed multiculturalism is because I expected precisely this. Multiculturalism encourages ghettoisation. Guaranteed to. And cultural ghettos are guaranteed to generate problems.
Value of a culture is not the issue, a failure to mix the melting pot is guaranteed to result in cultural friction between competing cultures. Although it doesn't help that Islam has built in structures discouraging integration.
A society with a few small peaceful separatist groups can smile tolerantly and let them get on with it (Hasidic Jews, Amish). But large numbers of people with competing sets of values? Unstable, deeply unstable.
Posted by Counting Cats at September 10, 2007 11:12 AM
Immigrants in Los Angeles are, in my experience, just as cynical and alienated as those in London. I suspect it is less to do with political ideology, and more to do with the concentration of large numbers of people who do not feel like they belong in the host culture.
Posted by Jameson at September 10, 2007 12:44 PM
If people feel they do not belong in a host culture, they instinctively gather more of themselves into tighter groups, putting up barriers (both subtle and belligerent) and sealing themselves into some sort of ghetto. In turn this promotes a further distancing as others resent this continuing grouping and attendant inflexibility.
They may well be angry or disillusioned because they are not "integrated" but often it is a feeling that emanates from them - or if they didn't start it they certainly are going to continue damn well not being integrated.
In the UK there is some evidence of a tradition of "live and let live" but it is a gesture by people who already occupy these islands, not a dictat from elsewhere. Multiculturalism is an intellectual myth from people who imagine they don't have to integrate because they too are in their own tight communities (politicians, media luvvies, university professors, etc) who exist in a narrow world and believe they know best as they "have thought about this."
Multicults love the idea of a large, fluid society but often they pick the terms on which they interface with it. Labour leaders sending their kids to private and not state schools sums it up neatly.
One of the primary groups who despise this multicultural approach are the Muslims, who not only want their tribal customs in their host country but earnestly want it for everyone else too. Convert to our way or there will be trouble, which good old Bin Liner trotted out the other day. We can however guarantee that multicults will be among the first up against the wall when Sharia law is accepted.
As far as people and groups like this are concerned those trite little western intellectuals help by promoting other values, sometimes ahead of common sense or local tradition. Multiculturalism has become a stick with which to beat people, wielded by people suposedly far cleverer than you and me, or waved by people who actually don't want multi anything.
Posted by freeman too at September 10, 2007 01:15 PM
Separate but Equal. There is another word for that too, coined in South Africa. Apartheid.
Posted by Deltawingman at September 10, 2007 01:21 PM
I'm not equating multiculturalism with segregation or apartheid is as useful as it first appears. Segregation in the US was an acceptable way of preventing African Americans exercising their civil liberties, it was instituionalised racism. Apartheid actually denied civil liberties absolutely to those of non-European background.
Multiculturalism is different, it seeks to subsidise immigrant groups' cultural choices and educate the rest of the citizenry of the equality (if not of the validity) of those cultural choices. Not only that, but it also tries to eliminate those aspects of the host culture which are offensive to the newcomers. I don't think the architects of segregation or apartheid had any great love of the culture of those they were seeking to keep separate.
Multiculturism is a beauty contest whereby everyone gets a blue ribbon simply because they turned up.
Posted by Brendan Halfweeg at September 10, 2007 02:24 PM
My first line should begin reading:
I'm not sure equating multiculturalism...
Posted by Brendan Halfweeg at September 10, 2007 02:28 PM
With respect to ghettos, I coined the word "metrocosm" because ghetto, while capturing the appearance, does not at all capture the dynamic of the enclaves we are discussing.
I googled the 'word' and by the time I had scrolled through the pages, only had thirty hits. One of them was a suggestion of the word by a cemmenter in this thread on (brace yourself) the Daily Kos. The commenter 'Ernest T Bass' appears to be suggesting it in much the same context that I am using it.
What I mean by this word is taken from the Greek roots. (in Greek μήτηρ, mētēr = mother + κόσμος (kosmos) "world") In appearance it is the superficially similar to a ghetto but opposite in the ways that matter. A ghetto is enforced from outside and constricts its inhabitants. It is a meta-context embedded within a larger host and is finite and sometimes terminal in outlook.
A "metrocosm" as I use the word, is formed from within, and is pushing against its surroundings rather than the inverse. It is a meta-context embedded within a larger host that is an incubator for growth. I use it expressly to refer to any aggressive and expansive insular subcultures within a host culture. This aggressive insularity only works if the host culture is either unable or unwilling to exert itself over the invading culture.
All cultures desire to maintain chosen features when they arrive in a new country. It is how the country responds to them that is important.
I debated the appropriateness of using a 'mother' term for a patriarchal society, but decided to use it anyway because that part is not relevant. A "metrocosm" is in its baldest sense, a womb for the growth new combatants in their campaign for that subculture's growth.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 10, 2007 02:40 PM
Multiculturalism, or at least the illusion of such, will only work if the host culture's attributes (again illusion will suffice) are allowed to be flaunted as bigger and more important than those of new cultures.
In countries where the idea of nationality and pride of citizenship are seen as negatives (no flags at Australian rock concerts, no Georges crosses in English schools) because they might cause offence, new cultures will be encouraged to flaunt their own cultural attributes as greater to that of the host or at the very least a necessity due to the absence of a proud and defined host culture.
I firmly believe that the American pride of nationality no matter how firmly rooted in reality it may or may not be is one of that countries saving graces against the sort of vile cultural relativism that will soon equate female genital mutilation with Christmas trees in the airport.
No one can argue that a countries culture will and needs to change over the course of time. The trick is to allow this change happen at a slow and gradual pace. This involves ignoring the requests of new cultures to a degree as you would ignore the tantrums of a spoilt and moody child. That old chestnut "because I said so" as an answer to any outrageous requests works wonders.
Posted by WalterBowsell at September 10, 2007 02:45 PM
Thanks, Mid, for a thoughtful & thought-provoking analysis. I never thought of the link between segregation & multiculturalism before.
But there may be more to it than that. You mentioned the Amish -- who choose to separate themselves and are no problem to anyone.
Then consider the Mormons, who are heavily focused within their own community, but still encourage every young man to spend two years outside their community spreading the Word.
What seems to be different about the Islamists is not their desire to be separate nor their desire to spread their religion -- it is their use of violence.
One of the many bad features of multiculturalism is the stupid idea that all (non-western) cultures are equal -- and of course automatically better than the silly old Graeco-Roman foundations of European culture. Question is -- how to deal with a culture that embraces violence directed against non-believers?
There is no question how the liberal guardians of mult-culti would react to the emergence of, say, a Crusading Christian sect which offered non-Christians the choice between conversion & depth. So why do they tolerate violent Islamists? It looks like the multi-cultis cannot shake that old manipulative white liberal guilt.
The other side of that question is about the non-violent supporters of Islam. If the hypothetical Crusading Christian sect emerged, there is no question that their violence would be condemned in every church in the land. Why do "moderate" followers of Islam not eject the violent from their community? Maybe all cultures are not equal.
Posted by Alice at September 10, 2007 05:26 PM
Sadly the drive to assimilate and the belief in "Americanism" or "American ness" is less now than it has even been.
"How can you know that Paul? You have never been to the United States".
O.K. But who can put his hand on his heart and say that all (or even most) Muslims born in the United States feel American first and Muslim second?
Even when there is no conflict of religion (and whether we like it or not the conflict between Islam and the West goes back more than a thousand years and is not going to end anytime soon), there is less assimilation than there used to be.
For example do the immigrants from south of the border (legal as well as illegal) really feel "American"?
No doubt some do, but do most?
What matters is not the colour of a person's skin, but the ideas in their head.
And American education and most of the American media (including Hollywood) is more ANTI American than it has ever been.
Let us say someone is a "Mexican-American" (the very term ignores Teddy Roosevelt's warning, but let us leave that aside).
What are American schools and MODERN American films going to tell him about (say) the war of 1848?
Are they going to say it was good or bad that California (and so on) became part of the United States?
Ditto with language. Far from demanding English, schools even in Texas are now experimenting with teaching in Spanish (again ignoring the warnings of Teddy Roosevelt - and ignoring experience from California that mixing up language in school is TERRIBLE for the children of immigrants).
It would be nice to think that a nation could be held together by a Constitution alone (although, of course, much of the Constitution of the United States has been a dead letter for a very long time indeed). But in reality a basic political loyality (based on history, not on race) and a basic common culture are also needed.
The sort of thing that gets weaker every day.
Posted by Paul Marks at September 10, 2007 06:47 PM
Alisa: Only a couple of them. That said, while thinking about the answer to your question, I realise that I may have been slightly over optimistic. I have met a few taxi drivers, whose immigration status I had no reason to know (or religion, for that matter, though in the case of the Sikhs I was able to guess) who described themselves as being from India.
Still and all, I can't help wondering whether US Islam might be a little bit less mental than the flavour we get over here.
Posted by the other rob at September 10, 2007 06:51 PM
I'll start believing all cultures are equal when the people who assert that believe it. If the culture of Berzerkistan is as good as mine, why isn't mine as good as theirs? Equality should be commutative, damn it, and until it is, I'll hold by my culture.
Posted by Dr. Ellen at September 10, 2007 06:53 PM
Rob: sure. I did say that Mid makes a good point. But all it means is that multiculturalism is conducive to home-grown terrorism*. It does not mean that the elimination of the former will totally eradicate the latter.
*Still a good enough reason to do away with it, if the fact that it is just so damn nauseating was not enough.
Posted by Alisa at September 10, 2007 07:09 PM
Cultural equivalence was one of the wedges that the Gramscian termites used to undermine Western society to thus further the Revolution. Multiculturalism was the bastard child,as half witted as it is pernicious,using all the ploys and outrages of the old left to divide and rule.
Posted by ron brick at September 10, 2007 07:37 PM
Paul,
I think you know me well enough to know I agree with your assessment of America. This is why I spoke comparatively w/re to Europe. Clearly our situation with 'Mexican-America' or more comprehensively Hispanic-American is a problem area.
I grew up on the edge of an insular Puerto Rican enclave. Crime was developing rapidly and my father's company relocated to somewhere safer. It was shortly after that the FALN terrorists sought (against the will of most Puerto Ricans) 'independence' for Puerto Rico. (See Miniter's comments about 'political control' above)
I think your assessment of America is accurate and does not bode well for our future.
I will point out again to some here that it is not how the immigrants attempt to behave, it is how they are permitted to behave. One language of government, one set of laws. The Hispanic community in the US is being helped to set up a parallel society much as the Muslim one is in Europe. If a government finds need to accommodate someone in another language, they should be providing translators, not other-language government. Translators should only be provided at the governments expense when it is the government acting against the individual (prosecutions, etc). Any body seeking to avail themselves of the benefits of government should be made to do so in the language of the host society. I include in this latter category everything from trade and vehicle licensing to entitlements and 'benefits'.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 10, 2007 08:05 PM
O.K. But who can put his hand on his heart and say that all (or even most) Muslims born in the United States feel American first and Muslim second?
Well, obviously it won't be all, and I'm not even going to bite and say "most" since I really don't know that many Muslims, but my impression of most of the ones I've met is that they are assimilating quite nicely here (Canada is a completely different story of course) and do indeed consider themselves Americans.
To the extent that I understand Midwesterner to mean that it is Hispanics more than Muslims who are being encouraged to set up a parallel society here (and I realize I'm putting words in his mouth), I completely agree. That seems to be the real analogue to the issues involving Muslim assimilation in Europe.
Even so, I'm a bit less alarmed about allowing education in Spanish than the rest of you. Such schools existed for German immigrants in large numbers for decades (and German was even the second official language of Pennsylvania until the late 1950s), and the German community was every bit as exclusive and arrogant as the Spanish-speaking community sometimes can be today. In spite of all their best efforts, German never took hold, and that is because the children of immigrants will tend to adopt the ambient language. Even if Hispanics can manage to, as the Germans did, set up communities where Spanish is the ambient language, they will not be able to achieve this for even the majority of the hispanic immigrant population in the US. It is isolated communities within what they like to style their "community" that are Spanish-only, and it seems unlikely to me that they will be able to establish a large enough number of such communities to reach the critical mass necessary to keep the whole pattern going over several generations.
I don't mean to imply that I am not concerned about the situation regarding Latin (mostly Mexican) immigrants - just that I am more concerned about the legal and cultural aspects of it than the "danger" that Spanish will be able to set itself up as a second language within the US.
I am concerned about the legal issues because I think lots of amnesty overtures send the wrong signal about the rule of law (by rewarding lawbreakers at the expense of those legitimate immigrants who jumped through all our hoops).
I am concerned about cultural issues because - as Mr. Marks rightly notes - too few Americans are shocked by images such as immigrants holding up Mexican flags (rather than our own) while demanding their "right" to come here in violation of our procedures. Too many native-born Americans seem too willing to sell their culture down the river these days.
But as for Spanish education in some schools in California, I very seriously doubt that will prove to be much of a problem (much the same way as teaching Creationism in a few schools in Kansas will not mean that the entire American scientific community comes crashing down - as many would have it --- though of course I realize that teaching one unit in one subject isn't quite on the same scale as teaching all classes in a foreign language).
I suppose it will prove to be a hindrance to those students who retain Spanish as their primary language in this English-speaking country, and it should be fought on those grounds. But speaking as a professional Linguist, there is no reason to worry that allowing Spanish-only public schools here and there will tilt the balance to a foothold for Spanish becoming a second, separate language in the US. All it will do is handicap the students who attend these schools when it comes time to pursue a career outside the automobile repair and food service industries - probably persuading most of them to have nothing to do with such schools when it comes time to raise their own kids, actually.
Posted by Joshua at September 11, 2007 01:27 AM
Brave post Mid my friend.
I would prefer to go short , funny and to the point, as I usually try to. This one is too complex. It may end up of Marksian length.
I was going to start by saying that I grew up in a monoculture being born in Britain in the 50s.
But that's not really true. Britain has always been 4 Nations vieing with each other. Mainly the three Celtic ones resenting the power of the English one, continually blameing the English for all their woes. Some real, most imagined. Yet we together evolved a unique balance that managed to forge the largest Empire the world has ever known. More by accident than malice aforthought.
The differences even in the 50s were tangible between us indiginous people, but outright hatred and hostility was rare.
We managed to fight as one through two world wars and win. We were encouraged to feel British even though we were Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English. The slight differences (though they were always more than slight) were glossed over in the cause of unity.
Our main differences then were of class. The class war waged by socialism, communism lite if you like ,was the front line of our conscious battles.
Socialism preached that we are all equal, but somehow the "rich" had stolen everything and made the poor poor. Redress and retribution had to be made. This thought is still uppermost in the minds of ardent socialists.The Empire of course, was also stolen goods.
The very simplistic idea of Workers of the World Unite was the one that led to the concept that all cultures are also equal and that the supposed downtrodden from wherever they may originate from ,be uplifted whatever the cost to the indiginous population.
We had an Empire that the socialists thought we never should have had. The socialists came to power in 1948 and bent over backwards to give it all back to those they thought had been maltreated for centuries, and as fast as possible.
Hence the balls up of the partition of India that led to millions of deaths. Our fault in absentia, not in commission. Also the pull out of Kenya, Nigeria, Rhodesia etc.
We gave back stable and prosperous countries and economies to those who shouted the loudest for us to leave. The smart folk from those countries have followed us right back here to Britain. Knowing the corruption and massacre that would follow our withdrawl from their homelands. They were right.Many others have followed right along behind them.
But we have had our borders open for so long now, there is no way we can get back to some kind of stability. Socialism has told them their rights and encouraged all who come here to do their own thing and not muck in with the already fragile alliance the indiginous population had held together for a thousand years because they are just as good as us.So why should they? That is multiculturalism.
Ha! then they foisted devolution on us! A very bad and divisive idea that has no recall mechanism to it. It is done and we are stuck with it.
We now have the prospect of people from the same village in India, who arrive in the UK and one ends up in Glasgow encouraged to think himself scottish, another in Cardiff, to think himself Welsh and both to hate their brother who ends up in Bradford because he is encouraged to be English. How sane is this?
Thing is though our immigrants are smarter than this. They know who they are, and will continue to be. However much Socialism pleads with them to be Workers of the World united!
My Hindu friends hate the Muslims. The Somalis hate the Jamacans and the Jamacans hate them right back. the Muslims hate everybody , and even other muslims cos their the wrong sect.
Good ol Socialism eh?
Workers of the world- You Fight!
Each other.
Posted by RAB at September 11, 2007 01:38 AM
Joshua,
I've wondered about why it is turning out differently with the Spanish language population. Looking back certainly at Midwestern history, there has been much education in other languages. Why does it seem to be turning out so differently this time? I think it comes down to two factors that are unprecedented. One, the wide ranging welfare state. Like your comment suggests, the ambitious ones (legal or not) adapt and learn English. But at time when ever higher percentages of all Americans live off of the state in some way, and when social programs are administered in Spanish, it is easier to never adapt. But the big difference is the shear numbers this time. Spanish language speakers are far bigger of a share of the population nationally than any group ever (save English speakers).
Since this is a national and not just a regional or local population, the things that other language ghettos were missing, national news and entertainment outlets in their tongue, exist now along with large enough populations to show national political power. All of the previous language ghettos I found where isolated once they stepped out of the neighborhood. There were Norwegian immigrants in the Dakotas that went 3(?) generations without speaking English. But none of these groups could move around the country and exist in a parallel society. Spanish speakers can and do. None of these other groups (or Spanish speakers in other times) had the huge degree of clout at a national level and the political savvy to work the political system.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 02:20 AM
Well, RAB, I enjoyed the long comment. My eyes are a bit strained but it was interesting and enlightening.
I have an observation and a question for you (or any others). I know many immigrants to the US and there is a type that has been mentioned by others in this thread, that out-Americans those of us who were born here. They came here expecting something and they are going to find it if they have to make it. They are the ones who struggle with newly learned English to insist they are "American".
I have suspected that something similar happens with some immigrants to Britain. People who have a historically based perception of Britain and come looking for it. Are there any or many immigrants that are more pro-British than the native British?
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 02:31 AM
Midwesterner-
I've wondered about why it is turning out differently with the Spanish language population.
I'm not so convinced things are turning out differently for (this particular wave of) the Spanish-speaking population in actuality. But assuming you're right and they are, I would submit that the more likely cause is that there's an endless flow of them made possible by the bleak political future in their homecountries coupled with the willingness of certain "administrators" (the so-called Commander in Chief among them) to ignore the law to "help" them get here. Mass German, Irish and Italian immigration were all fairly time-limited things - because the situations in the homecountries eventually improved enough to stop it. In the case of Spanish-speakers, we're really not dealing with single countries or political situations (though I guess Mexico is the most prominent at the moment). So it's a trend in a unique position to continue, unfortunately.
If there's going to be a Spanish-speaking foothold in the US, I think it will have more to do with the fact that they can keep replenishing the base of native speakers more than with the fact that they are getting social services in Spanish. Immigrant languages wither and die; they lose out to the ambient language in all cases. They only ever survive this by cutting themselves off in such a way that their children are unaware, in some important sense, that they are living in a larger nation (and fostering this illusion is much less possible today in the age of mass media than it was for isolated Norwegian farming communities a century ago; it was largely a lost cause even then). However, I'm not sure what happens when there is an endless (and possibly ever-increasing) supply - spanning several generations - of native speakers to keep the language alive - so maybe this makes today's Spanish-speaking immigrants special.
The fact that they are getting social services at all - where they wouldn't have been 100 years ago - may well also play an important role, as you say (though I doubt it would ever be decisive in and of itself). Alright - I'll change what I said and agree that it worries me that we're paying people not to work - for all the usual reasons, of course, as well as the added reason that it may be sustaining "unnatural" linguistic communities within the greater English-speaking community.
As for it having to do with available entertainment and news in Spanish - well, all that stuff was available to the Germans too. They had schools, newspapers with near-national circulation, and there was no shortage of German theaters etc. And German immigration was spread out over the whole of the Midwest (the Irish and Norwegians et al were more concentrated in their chosen cities/regions) - so in that sense they had the base for a trans-national community in the sense you talk about.
I'll have to concede that the Germans never had the same level of political clout. Certainly they wanted it and actively sought it, but they don't seem to have had as much success as the Spanish-speakers organizing a political lobby. I suppose that will have been a result of the fact that American culture is more socialist and happy to blame itself for everything today, even (especially?) problems it hasn't caused, than it was back then.
Alright, so there is a case that this population may be exceptional. I would just like to say that, linguistically speaking, they have huge hurdles to overcome getting an established linguistic foothold in a nation as otherwise monolingual as the US (of course there are many languages spoken here, but there is really only one language of prestige, regardless of the absence of official status for it). Maybe the differences you outlined (and I expanded on) are enough, maybe they aren't. Time will tell. Certainly I agree that the US needs to stop apologizing for speaking English when that is the established national language both in terms of history/tradition as well as simple demographics.
Posted by Joshua at September 11, 2007 03:29 AM
It's beddy bobbo time for me, being twenty past three Mid, but the short answer is... I think No.
It is very hard to find anyone who thinks themselves actually British these days, even amongst us who have been here since the ice sheets receeded.
We'd like to, but Socialism has done it's work well!
Thing is we have never had to think about it before.
Now is definately the time. Or it may be too late!
Posted by RAB at September 11, 2007 03:32 AM
Are there any or many immigrants that are more pro-British than the native British?
Yes, me.
When I first went to London I was a died in the wool Anglophile. Had always been one, would always be one.
I am somewhat more cynical about the Brits now, but I still regard them as an admirable people, and as Imperialists, somewhat preferable to the French, Dutch, Belgians, Portuguese and Spanish. I still have no idea why Britain is turning itself into just another European country, given that its institutions and attitudes have proven so much more stable, honest and conducive to development over the centuries than those of, say, well, just about anyone.
Posted by Counting Cats at September 11, 2007 04:40 AM
The real problem with the Spanish language issue in the US is not the fact that the Latinos want to teach their kids their language, but that they want it paid with tax dollars. I am sure that the Germans in the MW mentioned above did not have this "luxury", and taught their kids German at home or in private schools. There are western countries that are bi-, and even tri-lingual, and it seems to work reasonably well most of the time. Spanish is a European language that has a lot in common with English (through Latin), so I would say that this should be viewed as the least of the problems which arise from immigration. Which leads me back to the original premise: how big is the chance that the Latino community becomes a hotbed for terrorism in the way the Muslim communities in Europe have become?
Speaking of Germans (OT): some 15 years ago or so, when I was still subscribed to Time magazine, they published a survey that showed the German ancestry to be the most prevalent among American citizens - I wonder how much truth is there in this.
Counting Cats: I am very curious as to where you are from - you don't have to answer, obviously. And, I strongly agree with your last paragraph.
Posted by Alisa at September 11, 2007 06:05 AM
Let's see. "Assimilation" = "Using one's person and property in a similar way to those around you, by following the the "cultural norms" of those around you." Meanwhile, "libertarianism" = "the belief in a full right to dispose of your person and property as you see fit."
Seems to me that libertarianism entails that people shouldn't have to "assimilate" if they don't want to.
There is the counter-position of the Borg, of course: "You will be assimilated; resistance is futile."
Posted by Richard Garner at September 11, 2007 11:33 AM
Joshua
It is not a matter of teaching in Spanish (and the rest of the use of the language by government) proving to be a problem in the future in California - IT HAS ALREADY HAD TERRIBLE EFFECTS, not least for the children of immigrants themselves. As for the German language example - that dog will not hunt, the United States did not have a long land border with any German speaking country and no part of the United States had a history of being part of a German speaking country.
Sadly votes to end these social experiments were struck down by the courts - the Judges in this matter (as in so many matters) are determined to do all they can to destroy the United States (the influence of Marcuse as well as of Gramsci - via the university education of the people who one day become judges).
"But as a libertarian you should not believe in government schools".
Quite so. But that does not mean that, whilst they exist, I do not care what goes on in them.
Ditto other government activities (libraries and so on).
There is no reason what-so-ever why an Hispanic should not make a good American (I can think of half a dozen people I see on Fox News every week, for a start), but only if American culture and history is presented in its best light, i.e. if people are led to WANT to become Americans (not just live in the United States and get benefits of various sorts).
Muslims:
Islam is what it is.
There is the basic theology (as expressed in the holy writings of Islam) and there is the matter of history (which is NOT how the liberals present it).
If most Muslims were converting to Christianity (or to atheism) there would be no problem. However, as things are, there is always the danger that nominal Muslims (the nice people one meets) could at some point get interested in their religion and become active Muslims.
Such restorations of Islamic belief (moving away from laxness and toleration of others) has happened many times in history - in many places.
"But Christians have committed the most terrible crimes in the name of their faith".
Quite so, but Jesus did not - Mohammed did.
This is a difference in kind at the very foundation of the two religions.
Posted by Paul Marks at September 11, 2007 01:08 PM
Seems to me that libertarianism entails that people shouldn't have to "assimilate" if they don't want to.
Libertarianism holds that people shouldn't be legally forced to assimilate. So in that sense, you're right. However, Libertarianism also very definitely holds that any decision not to assimilate on the part of new immigrants should NOT be made at the expense of the rest of us. That is to say, they are free to choose not to assimilate if they wish, but we should not be forced to pay to support this decision - in, e.g., the form of providing them what Midwesterner calls a parallel legal society, complete with compulsory education in Spanish, driver's license tests in Spanish, courts and police that operate in Spanish, etc. As I was trying to argue in my earlier comments, the resources needed to sustain an alternative linguistic community within a monolingual society are huge - because it simply doesn't happen that immigrant languages take hold. The deck is very much stacked against them. I don't object (on any legal grounds) to their trying to set up an alternative linguistic community, I just don't think that I should be taxed to help them fight nature in this way. Nor do I think that Spanish should be adopted as an alternative legal language until they have established their parallel linguistic community - which, to date, they have not. Allowing people to interact with the government in Spanish at this point is putting the cart before the horse and amounts to a subsidy.
This is a consistent Libertarian position. People are free to attempt the impossible; they are not free to require me to help foot the bill for their pet projects. That's all.
Posted by Joshua at September 11, 2007 01:19 PM
Quite so Paul. I am listening to someone on 5 live right now discussing Ossies latest video and what it's purpose is.
The thrust is that the militants are targeting Europe mainly to radicalise their own moderate Muslims. They wish to force them to take sides and do not wish them to get too comfortable in their new home.
They wish to push the non muslim populations of Europe into a violent backlash that will move the average muslim to their side as either active or at the very least passive but support roles. Hiding activists and storing weapons and explosives for them.
Like Alisa, I too am curious Counting Cats (thanks for the attitude by he way. I just havent met anyone like you in a long time).
To answer the question as to why we are turning ourselves into just another European country, the short answer is that since the early 70s, when the arse was out of our collective trousers economically thanks to the policies of various Labour Governments, and little improvement from Tory ones, we have been told that we will go bankrupt if we do not join the collective.
The main villain though was the Traitor Heath. A self obsessed buffoon of a man who forced us into Europe out of his own personal conviction.
Cabinet papers were released last year under the 25 year rule, that stated that Heath set up a committee of Civil Servants to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages of EU membership (Common Market then.Softly softly catchee monkey you see).
They came back and reported that on balance the disadvantages far outweighed the benefits. Heath binned the report and ordered the civil servants to "Get us in at all costs"
I did not see one article that howled with outrage at this blatent decepetion. I couldn't believe it!
Posted by RAB at September 11, 2007 01:41 PM
As for the German language example - that dog will not hunt, the United States did not have a long land border with any German speaking country and no part of the United States had a history of being part of a German speaking country.
Hmm... I think I was pretty clear in my concession earlier that if there is anything special about Spanish in the US it is precisely that - that there is an endless supply of Spanish-speaking immigrants, which would not have been the case with the Germans earlier. The border certainly plays a role in making that "endless supply" a reality, and in that sense you're probably right. However, I don't think too much focus should be put on the border itself. The critical factor is how long a wave of immigration (i.e. over how many generations) can be sustained. It wouldn't have mattered whether or not German-speaking countries had a border with the US if they could have kept the troops marching over here longer than they did, I suspect.
It is not a matter of teaching in Spanish (and the rest of the use of the language by government) proving to be a problem in the future in California - IT HAS ALREADY HAD TERRIBLE EFFECTS, not least for the children of immigrants themselves.
This will not do. You will need to supply some examples for this argument to be convincing.
And just to be clear - we agree that immigrants have the right to send their children to private Spanish-only schools, yes? The "catastrophic" effects of doing so be what they will - so long as they foot the bill?
It is not my responsibility to help immigrants assimilate any more than it is my responsibility to help them refuse to assimilate. What they do when they get here is their responsibility, to be done at their own expense. I agree that the government should not be helping them refuse to assimilate. However, I think a lot of people here are confusing short-term gains with sustainability. The children of immigrants will, in all cases, adopt the ambient language, rather than the language of their parents, as their primary language (though the second generation often remains bilingual). That is scientifically well-established; feel free to check the literature for yourself. A handful of schools taught in Spanish will not be enough to sustain a parallel Spanish-speaking nation in this English-speaking country. The objection is that our tax money is funding Spanish-speaking schools - not merely that they exist as there is very little danger that they will be successful on the kind of scale they need to be to realize all the fears of the 'English-only' crowd.
There is no reason what-so-ever why an Hispanic should not make a good American (I can think of half a dozen people I see on Fox News every week, for a start), but only if American culture and history is presented in its best light, i.e. if people are led to WANT to become Americans (not just live in the United States and get benefits of various sorts).
I certainly have no objections to this. We should definitely stop teaching a skewed view of American history wherein America is always on the bad side of any controversy. However - and again, just to be clear - I think it would be just as bad to err on the other side - i.e. the way Japan does it, writing history textbooks that are essentially works of fiction for the purpose of painting their own country in a good light. Ideally, history texts should emphasize what's good about the US, yes, but not at the expense of truth. I realize you have not tried to argue that we should invent history for the purpose of assimilating immigrants, but I thought the point worth emphasizing all the same.
There are limits to how far you can go "presenting history in its best light."
"But Christians have committed the most terrible crimes in the name of their faith".Quite so, but Jesus did not - Mohammed did.
This is a difference in kind at the very foundation of the two religions.
Well, fine, but how many Christians do you really know who live entirely by the Bible (or have even read the whole thing through)? Religions are largely matters of convenience. They reflect the things believers want to hear. If a group of Christians decides they want to slaughter whole tribes of natives, a suitable interpretation of the Bible can be found that will allow it. Likewise, if Muslims want to settle down and eat at the table with the rest of us, no doubt a suitable interpretation of the Koran can be found that will allow that too. It is, I think, no accident that most of the baddies come from Saudi Arabia. That is a country where the local religious culture encourages all kinds of savagery. There are comparatively fewer terrorists from other Muslim countries, where the local religious culture is not so harsh.
Posted by Joshua at September 11, 2007 01:56 PM
Mexico has a philosophy called "mañana" or "tomorrow". I wonder how much this has to do with a lower intensity of conquest. But the Puerto Rican FALN definitely played hard ball and conducted several terrorist attacks. The terrorist's intent (absolutely predicted by Miniter's article) was to pry Puerto Rico away from the USA in spite of a repeatedtly expressed intent by Puerto Rican voters to maintain commonwealth status (which means Puerto Rico compares most closely to statehood but with more autonomy and less representation.
Regarding the prevalence of German ancestry, certainly true here in Wisconsin. And if any of you are ever at University of Wisconsin-Madison, go to the Rathskellar in the Union and have a look around. The Rath is the social center of the campus. My father actually learned more German than he did the language of his own parents, who immigrated without a word of English.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 03:20 PM
Joshua,
Well, fine, but how many Christians do you really know who live entirely by the Bible (or have even read the whole thing through)?
I have to part ways with you on the Bible says what you want it to claim. It does not. Anytime you find someone making those kinds of claims for violence, theft or whatever, they will ALWAYS resort to the Old Testament. Whenever my father heard those claims, he would set the people back to the New Testament to find it and surprise, there is nothing from Christ to support it. Paul has a very good point there.
Regarding familiarity with the Bible, as you spend more time in the Midwest away from universities, you will find that regular churchgoers (and many others) are far more familiar than you think. My father read a chapter a day for his entire life and that was above and beyond all his regular, church based studying. Attend almost any Evangelical church's adult Sunday school classes and you will be amazed at the depth and accuracy of what is taught.
For the record, I advocate for agnosticism but was raised in an Evangelical family and community.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 03:21 PM
Joshua,
If there's going to be a Spanish-speaking foothold in the US, I think it will have more to do with the fact that they can keep replenishing the base of native speakers more than with the fact that they are getting social services in Spanish. Immigrant languages wither and die; they lose out to the ambient language in all cases.
Go to any retail store in the nation. Go down any aisle and pick up any product. Read the box and pull out the instructions. You will find Spanish. No other immigrant group ever even remotely approached that level of ubiquity. Now, you are confused, ask any sales staff "habla espanol?" and in any store of any size any where in the nation, odds are extremely high they will find you someone. No other immigrant group ever achieved that level of ubiquity either.
(In major grocery store franchises in the Southwest aimed at Anglo customers, I have needed to go the "Do you speak English?" route and wait while they tried to find me someone.)
The only other ubiquitous language here is all products intended for Canada have French on them. But in the US, if you need French language assistance in a store, good luck. The odds are far lower. And do we really want to pursue a Canadian language model?
Europeans will think this comment strange because you are used to seeing instructions in a dozen languages. That is because Europe was and still is in most ways not a nation.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 03:22 PM
There is one utterly intractable problem with attempting to conduct government in two languages. The two sets of laws will be in different languages (duh!) and this means they can never be certain to agree. Judges will need to learn the law in both languages and reconcile them and enforce an interpretation that best accommodates both language versions.
This means that citizens will have to do something similar. We have probably thousands of million of laws, statues, rules, regulations, guidelines, standards, etc in the US Fed and state governments. There is no possible way even in good faith to make them all agree in two languages. They can't even agree in one. And after the political spin lobbiests infiltrate the reconciliation phase of markup ... !?
This means there can either be subjective law where people have to comply with whatever court they happen to find their selves in. Or we must have two parallel systems of laws. Which means, in fairness, we must be free to choose which one we want.
No matter how it is attempted, all laws must be in one language or bedlam and ultimately civil chaos will be the result.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 03:23 PM
Midwestener
Mexicans can be rather active if they want to be - think of the vast numbers of people who were killed after 1910. They are not always sleepy people.
Joshua.
I apologize for misunderstanding your German example.
"Give me an example of a terrible effect".
O.K. How about the messed up economic chances of the children of immigrants (that was not true of German immigrants in the 19th century).
Or the separate (and hostile) culture that is forming, or has already formed.
Religion.
Sorry religion is not totally flexible.
If a person wants to be "like Jesus" that may indeed mean (for some people) that they go around overturning money changers tables. But the liberation theology people are really athiests (Marxists in this case0 - and this is shown by the fact that whenever they took over an order of priests on nuns (or whatever) in the Roman Catholic Church that order went into to DECLINE.
If a person wants to be like Mohammed they are going to study the words and life of Mohammed.
What do you think that is likely to lead to?
Jesus was not into capturing towns by armed invasion, killing or enslaving those who did not accept his religion, raping children (and so on, and so on).
Posted by Paul Marks at September 11, 2007 03:40 PM
"But most Muslims are really nice people. And some of the greatest cultural achievements in the history of humanity have been produced by Muslims".
Totally true, and not relevant.
A nominal Muslim is not a problem, a Muslim who tries to follow the teachings and example of Mohammed is.
This is the unexploded bomb principle.
When Gordon first went to the Sudan the population was tolerant in matters of religion (although the old Christian kingdoms of Sudan had only been finally destroyed a couple of centuries before) and culturally tolerant as well - bare breasted women and other such.
Gordon went away for a few years, and on his return found the situation totally changed.
The "Mahdi" did not operate in a void, he took a potential that was there and exploited it.
He argued, quite correctly, that the people were lax - they were not following their religion. Of course he exterminated all who defied him, but many followed him willingly (being led to feel shame for the previous tolerant laxity).
Such restorers of Islamic values are many in Muslim history.
Posted by Paul Marks at September 11, 2007 03:49 PM
If a person wants to be like Mohammed they are going to study the words and life of Mohammed.What do you think that is likely to lead to?
I think it is likely to lead to exactly what you say - killing, arrogance, conquest, etc. My point was that the overall percentage of people in any religion who are so serious tends to be rather small - at least in civilized countries. I hate to sound like a Marxist here, but I really do think that as economic conditions in the Muslim world improve, such fundamentalism will become less attractive. Muslims will begin to do what Western Christians do - which is adopt a decidedly milder version of the philosophy than is outlined in the actual book. Religion takes on a wholly different character when people are fed and happy - and that is because people who are fed and happy tend to be less religious on the whole. (And right, I'm completely aware that Bin Laden never suffered. There are always such eccentrics in the world, regardless of social class. As a general social trend, though, I think most of the people doing the actual suicide bombing are in dire straits, and it is, after all, the general attitude of Muslims we're interested in, not the fringe, which can never be controlled and exists in any society, regardless of dominant religion.)
To put it differently:
A nominal Muslim is not a problem, a Muslim who tries to follow the teachings and example of Mohammed is.
Right, I agree. And I think there will be more "nominal Muslims" as a percentage of the total as things improve for them - just as most Christians are now "nominal Christians" in the West. Simple belief in Islam, in other words, does not doom one to be an enemy of a free society. Perhaps a literal interpretation of Islam does, but there won't always be as much of that going around as there is today.
O.K. How about the messed up economic chances of the children of immigrants (that was not true of German immigrants in the 19th century).
I think we're talking past each other here, then. In my original comment, I said "I suppose it will prove to be a hindrance to those students who retain Spanish as their primary language in this English-speaking country, and it should be fought on those grounds." and "All it will do is handicap the students who attend these schools when it comes time to pursue a career outside the automobile repair and food service industries - probably persuading most of them to have nothing to do with such schools when it comes time to raise their own kids, actually." So I don't disagree with you that Spanish-only public schools are a hindrance to the people who attend them and should be fought on those grounds. My concern was with correcting the impression that these schools alone would lead to heightened ability to resist assimilation. Again, I think it has almost nothing to do with the presence of such schools here and there. It's more a matter of whether the population of native speakers can be replenished with each generation to an adequate degree. I'm willing to admit (and have admitted) that there is cause to worry here, just because there may well be no end to the waves of sp-speaking immigrants coming in. But the mere presence of schools that cater to them is not enough to allow them to establish a foothold - just as it hasn't been for other equally-dedicated mmigrant groups in the past.
In any case, it's my fault. I shouldn't have asked for examples of "catastrophic consequences" for the students involved since that's not really my primary concern here. I'm actually talking about something else, and shouldn't have written a comment as though I were interested in ensuring the best possible educational conditions for the children of incoming immigrants because I am not really so interested in that. Certainly the leftist urge to segregate everyone into ghettoized communities should be fought - but this is a more general issue than the immigration issue, and I am afraid I have been mixing topics. Sorry.
Posted by Joshua at September 11, 2007 04:44 PM
No matter how it is attempted, all laws must be in one language or bedlam and ultimately civil chaos will be the result.
This may be a bit overstated. Canada has issues with this, but not nearly to the degree you are suggesting. It is, as countries go, very stable on the whole, though there are certainly legal interpretational issues here and there.
Go to any retail store in the nation. Go down any aisle and pick up any product. Read the box and pull out the instructions. You will find Spanish. No other immigrant group ever even remotely approached that level of ubiquity. Now, you are confused, ask any sales staff "habla espanol?" and in any store of any size any where in the nation, odds are extremely high they will find you someone. No other immigrant group ever achieved that level of ubiquity either.
Just to keep the record straight here - I have no objections to stores providing Spanish services if that's something they think will help them make profits. The difference with Canada is that those French labels on products are required by law. I hope you understand that I am not advocating requiring Spanish labels, or Spanish service, by law. Quite the contrary.
As for the ubiquity, however, point partly taken.
Nevertheless, English remains the ambient language in the overwhelming majority of American stores. It is the dominant spoken language heard in the background, the language most prominently displayed, and the language in which it is easiest to interact with the store employees. This means that the children of the people availing themselves of Spanish services are highly likely to adopt English rather than Spanish as their dominant language in spite of the best efforts of their parents. That has been the whole point of explaining that immigrant children adopt the ambient language rather than the language of their household. The language they choose to adopt need not be the language they use most during the day, in fact - at least, not when they're very young. It need only be the socially prominent language - which English is in most parts of the country. It is true that a Spanish-only existence is available to people who really want it. But such things have been available to immigrant populations in the past, and those populations all assimilated, with time. In short, I see that Spanish is more ubiquitous than German or Italian were in the past, but I am not convinced that even this level of ubiquity is enough to overcome the well-documented patterns of immigrant populations. Children of immigrants, though possibly bilingual, are always dominant in the ambient language. Unless English ceases to be the ambient language in large swathes of the country, Spanish is unlikely to survive here more than another generation or two.
Posted by Joshua at September 11, 2007 04:59 PM
Are there any or many immigrants that are more pro-British than the native British?
Yes, indeed. In my case, I am an immigrant twice over - first to England and then to Tyneside.
As for being pro-British, I cannot remember having wanted to live in any other country. I believed that everything I admired or thought worthy was to be found here. And my day-to-day encounters with the English have tended, largely, to bear that belief out.
Unfortunately, whatever disillusion or cynicism I've picked up has been almost entirely learned from the picture of Britain shown to me by our media - in particular, Radio4.
Posted by RobtE at September 11, 2007 06:13 PM
But Canada has the advantage of being able to divide along geographical lines. The US does not. And I do think it is only a slight exaggeration to say that Canada is very much two divisible nations standing behind one international face. From Boston to Minneapolis, and just about everywhere else, you will find high populations of Spanish speakers. We could never divide up by state or province. I really don't think the Canadian model is good for them (but they don't have much choice) and certainly I don't think it could work here.
I am citing the virtually universal Spanish language labeling as evidence of the problem, not the problem itself. If I was marketing a product, I would almost certainly label it in Spanish both for marketing purposes and to protect against product liability lawsuits for not providing Spanish language instructions.
If there's going to be a Spanish-speaking foothold in the US, I think it will have more to do with the fact that they can keep replenishing the base of native speakers more than with the fact that they are getting social services in Spanish. Immigrant languages wither and die; they lose out to the ambient language in all cases.
This thing reminds me of something else that is unique to this latest Spanish trend. The revolving residence. Even among legal aliens and even some immigrants, there is a back and forth across the border and a continuous contact with the 'Old' country.
My grandparents never again saw the country they left. Their only communication was by post.
If English remains permanently the language of the USA, I think it will be because it remains permanently the language of international trade and business. If it loses that status internationally, it could well lose it here too.
I can not think of any ... with your expertise, maybe you can. Has there ever been a time in US history where it was possible to live in the world culture of another language from within our borders? The most similar circumstance that comes to my mind is the Norman conquest of England in which the Norman culture was able to remain (I think) quite well connected to France. But of course, look at what happened to language subsequent to that.
My fundamental concern is to have only one language of government and only one set of laws. Beyond that, as for what happens in the streets, let the market decide. If we hold government to the one-language standard, what will probably happen is what usually happens. English will grow and include much from Spanish that becomes generally accepted and understood English. Eventually the absorbed language will find its way into our laws. But there must only ever be one set of laws and the regulations, procedures, etc that derive from them.
Does that seem reasonable and like a good standard to you?
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 06:13 PM
As per usual when a Muslim apologist makes the Tu Quoqe argument to a Christian, the Christian responds that this is all the Old Testament and the New Covenant is perfect on the violence front.
The first thing to point out is that this is demonstrable horseshit. Jesus was prefectly clear that he came not to "bring peace, but a sword" and, actually, if you bother to stop your ignorant twittering and bloody well read the bible you'll find that there is more violence the pound per pound in the New testament than the old.
The Old Testment contains many history books and - guess what?- History contains a hell of a lot of violence. There is not, though, a senstence, nay not a word, in the whole Old Testament that is remotely as hateful, vengeful and violent as Revelations. Lest we forget, Christians worship, as Acts records, a god who kills people for the grievous sin of owning property. (The fact that Jesus was a mentally unstable communist is a relatively trivial fact.)
If you perfectly followed the New Testament, to borrow the analogy used, you'd establish nothing more nor less than a totalitarian death cult. Such cults should be stamped out with maximum discretion. If worst comes to worst they might infect the high-ups and then, hell, you might end up almost destroying western civilization and plunging your continent into centuries of intestinal war.
Secondly, does it never occur to these New covenant fundamentalists* to ask why it is hat the past 2000 years were not characterised by a constant stream of pogroms and repression by the Jews on Christians? Why, if the New Testament is such a wondeful panacea, are Jews not a bunch of violent thugs? Which testament did Hitler ban: your wonderful New one wherin it is desribed how your Moloch--god sentences people to eternal hellfire before they are born, or the Old one? Would you prefer to live in 18th century England or America, whose inhabitants were noted for their remarkable affinity with the Hebrew bible, or contemporary Spain where the use of Old Testament names was an offence?
For some reason Christians assume that everyone thinks their Covenant of pure love is so great, to the extent that they haven't even processed the possibility that some people find it to be evil. Not, I hasten to add, that it is perverted by evil men, but that it is intrinsically evil itself. That is why Hitchen's latest work, despite being cock, is, at least, refreshing.
*I use the term because, as it happens, disparaging the Old Testament is a violation of the 39 articles and, at least in British terms, makes you a heretic. I would not impugn proper christianity with the views propagated on this thread.
(As it happens I think, broadly speaking, Christianity is a good thing and has been so for many centuries, but it is good only to the extent it remembers the messages of justice and freedom taught by the Old Testament and rejected by the New).
Posted by Gabriel at September 11, 2007 06:31 PM
Btw anyone who makes the claim that the Old Testament and the Koran are similar has either never read one or both of the pair or is a flat-out moron who couldnt pass an O-level literature course.
Posted by Gabriel at September 11, 2007 06:33 PM
Midwesterner -
...something else that is unique to this latest Spanish trend. The revolving residence. Even among legal aliens and even some immigrants, there is a back and forth across the border and a continuous contact with the 'Old' country.
It's not as unique as you might think. The history of immigration into the US between Independence and WWI can be divided into two loose periods. The dividing line is somewhere around 1890.
In the first period, the migrants were predominantly from northern and northwestern Europe. After about 1890 the primary centre of immigration switched to southern and eastern Europe.
This second group - Italians, Austro-Hungarians, Poles, Russians, etc - differed significantly in several ways from the previous immigrants. For one thing, they tended to be significantly poorer and more poorly educated. Secondly, there was a greater degree of travel back and forth to the Old Country. The Italians in particular were known for their to-and-fro-ing. My great-grandfather did it. Like many of his compatriots, he worked a few years in the US, saved a lot of money and then went back to Italy and spent it.
Posted by RobtE at September 11, 2007 06:56 PM
Sorry Gabriel but you will have to give me some references here.
I have read both the old and New Testement and have an O level in religion. The old fashioned kind. Not the pick n mix bit of everybody's religion they dish up now.
Not read the Koran I must confess, life is to short (well mine certainly would be if its advocates saw my lifestyle!)
I also have an O and A level in Literature.
Now if I remember rightly (it has been 30 years) Jesus went around saying things like "Blessed are the peacemakers" (not the cheesemakers. Listen up at the back there) and "Turn the other cheek" "Love your enemy".
He came into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey not an armoured charger, with twelve blokes who didn't have a penknife between them.
Where the friggin hell is the violence in the New Testement???
Posted by RAB at September 11, 2007 07:11 PM
Er ... Gabriel?
Maybe you want to see if you can do a little better than that. To provide a little more background for your not to "bring peace, but a sword" reference. If you read on in Mathew (which you are referencing), a couple of verses later you will find "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me". It is kind of hard to carry a cross and wield a sword simultaneously, don't you think? Or could this have been rhetoric?
The generally accepted teaching in any church I ever attended is that the 'sword' was the 'word' or law, separating believers from non-believers. By the way the New Testament is written, the first four books are different people's recollection of the same things. So look to Luke's version of Jesus' statement. In the King Jame's version it is "1 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: The NASB is similar with "51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division;
Also, it seems you are inclined to confuse Christ's apocalyptic predictions his instructions.
I think if you are going to make such sweeping assertions about Christ's teaching, you need to reference them. And I have no inclination to turn this into a theology thread. It holds no interest to me except as a guide to the various adherent's root beliefs.
As for your vague assertion that Acts says Christians worship a God who kills property owners, a reference might be nice?
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 07:14 PM
As for your vague assertion that Acts says Christians worship a God who kills property owners, a reference might be nice?
I assume it's a reference to the story of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5. If so, it's a complete and utter misunderstaning of what the story is about.
Posted by RobtE at September 11, 2007 07:22 PM
My fundamental concern is to have only one language of government and only one set of laws. Beyond that, as for what happens in the streets, let the market decide. If we hold government to the one-language standard, what will probably happen is what usually happens. English will grow and include much from Spanish that becomes generally accepted and understood English. Eventually the absorbed language will find its way into our laws. But there must only ever be one set of laws and the regulations, procedures, etc that derive from them.Does that seem reasonable and like a good standard to you?
Of course. I don't think anything in my comments can have given the impression that I am advocating a Canada-style system. My point was simply to argue that what seems like linguistic isolationism now will in all probability not last (and the major reason for that being because - precisely as you say - the Spanish-speaking population is not sequestered off in a Quebec-like quasi-nation of its own - thus English is the ambient language in their communities, and their children will end up learning it as dominant language whether their parents wish it or not). There are, as I have conceded, reasons to worry that this group of immigrants may prove more resistant than others - I just don't necessarily agree on what all of the reasons for concern are, or with the degree of concern that I'm hearing here. That's all.
Certainly I agree with you that nations are better off with only one language of law, and I hope the US is able to keep English as the de facto national language here - if for no other reasons than that I am an English speaker, and (more importantly) because this maintains continuity with the established legal tradition. However, were the Spanish-speakers to succeed in becoming the majority linguistic community here, I'm not sure how we could justly refuse to adopt legal code in Spanish at that point.
Fortunately, from what is known about immigrant linguistic behavior, I will be very surprised if that day ever arrives.
Posted by Joshua at September 11, 2007 07:42 PM
RobtE,
That would be funny interpretation, indeed. I was always taught (I think correctly) that the sin A & S were being punished for was attempting to lie to God. My dad always said they should have either kept the money or given the money, but not kept some and said they gave all of it. For others, here is a fairly mainstream interpretation of that story.
Joshua, I could see laws in two languages, just not one law in two languages. There can only be one law regardless of language. I think we agree. I hope your predictions are correct. And I give a lot of credence to them.
BTW, I heard something (I don't have a link) that after decades of fading, regional accents are making a slow comeback. Is that true? If so, it doesn't make sense to me. Is this something you know or have heard anything about?
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 08:17 PM
Joshua,
I think you are exactly correct. The implication of your view, however, implies that "multi-cultuaralism" and "non-assimilation" are not the problem. The problem lies in forcing others to pay for living under seperate cultural processes.
Richard
Posted by Richard Garner at September 11, 2007 08:21 PM
Joshua,
I should clarify that. I didn't say it well.
I can see laws in two languages under one government. Example being maybe Spanish language laws exclusive to Puerto Rico that are written, read and interpretted in Spanish. It would be a problem as cases moved through the appellate system, but ...
But I can not see single laws with two distinct language versions. That would be a political playground.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 08:33 PM
Midwesterner -
"A political playground" is a masterpiece of understatement, to put it mildly. From a linguistic viewpoint, it's impossible.
No two languages can be mapped to each other one-for-one. Leave aside so-called untranslatable words that require circumlocutions to express in English. Even basic vocabulary carries with it a set of baggage that only native speakers may be aware of. It's the old distinction between denotation and connotation.
We know from case law that legal cases can and do sometimes depend on determining the probable intended shading of a particular word or phrase. Suppose a law exists in two languages, both of which are equally valid. And suppose a dispute arises as to the exact meaning of a statute. You can work out the potential difficulties. For me, the thought of it makes my eyeballs bleed.
Posted by RobtE at September 11, 2007 09:07 PM
Maybe you want to see if you can do a little better than that. To provide a little more background for your not to "bring peace, but a sword" reference. If you read on in Mathew (which you are referencing), a couple of verses later you will find "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me". It is kind of hard to carry a cross and wield a sword simultaneously, don't you think? Or could this have been rhetoric?The generally accepted teaching in any church I ever attended is that the 'sword' was the 'word' or law, separating believers from non-believers. By the way the New Testament is written, the first four books are different people's recollection of the same things. So look to Luke's version of Jesus' statement. In the King Jame's version it is "1 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: The NASB is similar with "51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division;
What exactly do you think this proves? The fact is that Jesus' intention was to sow dissension, almost certainly of a violent nature. I do not regard this as something a founder of a religion should be doing.
This is exactly it. Christian and non-Christian alike both lazily assume that the New Testament is just *obviously* a praiseworthy moral document. After this conclusion has been reached then one can start cutting up the verses to fit their procrustean bed.
That would be funny interpretation, indeed. I was always taught (I think correctly) that the sin A & S were being punished for was attempting to lie to God. My dad always said they should have either kept the money or given the money, but not kept some and said they gave all of it. For others, here is a fairly mainstream interpretation of that story.Yawn. Their crime was failing to fulfil the requirements of the apocalyptic cult they had joined, namely owning no property. If they had kept the money they would have been expelled from the cult and thus damned to eternal torture, so that won't wash. In any case, let's say you're correct, I gurantee you I can find an explanation of any part of the OT that you find objectionable that meets the same moral criteria (remember your explantion still has G-d killing liars. Do you go around in death squads killing liars huh, do you?)
think if you are going to make such sweeping assertions about Christ's teaching, you need to reference them.Oh, but of course. You can, naturally, rag on my bible all you want, with no specificity at all. After all, Jewish on Christian violence has demonstrated the superiority of New testament ethics to Old beyond the point where we really need any more evidence, no? No?
Now if I remember rightly (it has been 30 years) Jesus went around saying things like "Blessed are the peacemakers" (not the cheesemakers. Listen up at the back there) and "Turn the other cheek" "Love your enemy".
Jesus also referred to Gentiles as swine, he said a lot of things, mostly contradictory, it's kind of what ranting demagogues do. People came to Jonestown with a dream of peace and love in their head too, y'know, that's how cults commonly work. The violent denoument that Jesus was longing for is clearly present. Why do you think he told his followers to buy swords, for fencing?
Where the friggin hell is the violence in the New Testement???
Too answer your question in one word: Revelations.
How many people do you estimate would have to die for a river to flow with blood?
Posted by Gabriel at September 11, 2007 09:20 PM
For me, the thought of it makes my eyeballs bleed.
You're from Texas?
:-)
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 09:21 PM
Gabriel,
Nobody attacked Judaism. Your uncalled for vendetta against Christianity is inappropriate, plain wrong and completely off topic.
The topic is multiculturalism.
Posted by Midwesterner at September 11, 2007 09:32 PM
Gabriel -
remember your explantion still has G-d killing liars.
The "G-d" construction is something I've only ever seen in Jewish writings. Can we conclude from your use that you're coming at the question from a Jewish viewpoint? I ask only because I wish to understand where it is you're coming from.
Too answer your question in one word: Revelations.
How many people do you estimate would have to die for a river to flow with blood?
Look, I don't want to hijack this thread and make it a theological discussion. That said, however, you do realise, don't you, that Revelation (no "s") makes sense only in the light of the OT prophets. Almost all the imagery used in the Revelation is a direct reference to the OT.
Posted by RobtE at September 11, 2007 09:42 PM
I really don't see the point of arguing who's book is better. All writings, including scriptures, are subject to interpretation. Any idea, no matter how noble and peaceful, can be twisted for purposes neither noble, nor peaceful. It's the interpretation that matters.
...but I really do think that as economic conditions in the Muslim world improve, such fundamentalism will become less attractive.
But there is a catch: that same fundamentalism is preventing the economic improvement.
I think that there is one major point that is generally overlooked in these discussions: religion and culture are two sides of the same coin. the way I see it is that certain religions originated from certain cultures. Later, when they are adopted by different cultures,they are modified to suite that particular culture (although I tend to think that these adoptions aren't purely incidental).
Posted by Alisa at September 11, 2007 09:56 PM
I have to part ways with you on the Bible says what you want it to claim. It does not. Anytime you find someone making those kinds of claims for violence, theft or whatever, they will ALWAYS resort to the Old Testament. Whenever my father heard those claims, he would set the people back to the New Testament to find it and surprise, there is nothing from Christ to support it.This is an attack on Judaism, of a very common type - the fact you don't recognise it says it all. (Just to head it off, I am not accusing you of anti-semitism.) Nevertheless I will desist, except to say that the Old Testament bad, New Testament good line has been possibly the most successful part of the Gramsican cultural left's attempt to subvert and pervert the western moral tradition.
Posted by Gabriel at September 11, 2007 10:05 PM
The Old Testament contains many history books and - guess what?- History contains a hell of a lot of violence.
What about all the laws in the Torah? "Eye for eye", for example?
Posted by Alisa at