I agree. Some supposed members of the Right (even on the FR) will call anyone who recognizes the differences between peoples racist. The Left doesn't even believe in assimilation -- they prefer "multiculturalism." Neither can argue -- they can only name call and hope to intimidate.
Yes. When the Left struck out in promoting Class Warfare in certain Western Nations, they began to play the race card. The hissing insult, became their stock in trade; race and ethnicity became a metaphor for class. But it is no more evil to be a member of another race, than to have obtained a certain level of material success. It is just plain silly, however, to pretend that either racial identity or material achievement is evil.
There has always been a high degree of social mobility in America (many well-to-do elderly today were born poor) so class warfare never went as far here as it did in other countries (where it often become a literal class war). This may change because of the massive offshoring of middle class jobs, but that's another story. So they successfully turned to whipping up racial, ethnic and religious hostilities. In fact, to cultural Marxists, Whites are not supposed to possess a sense of racial identity. That's racist.
When I suggest that Democracy has only worked for a few peoples in the history of man, I was not suggesting that it was either intended for America, or that--outside the New England Town Meeting--it has ever worked here. The present efforts to impose Democracy on America have been closely associated with the breakdown of our Constitutional values, and should certainly be opposed.
Human beings are by nature tribal and tribes are by nature territorial and competitive. People (and animals) instinctively prefer those they consider their own kind. One of the reasons democracy will work better in a homogenous society is because the population senses that it is really one big family of common blood, history, language, religion, culture, etc. Divisions will be regional or economic. This is true to some degree in the US -- the Republicans and the Democrats do tend to appeal to different racial, ethnic and religious groups. In third world countries, different tribes will literally have their own political parties. Arguably, monarchy is preferable in a heterogenous society because loyalty may be directed towards a person rather than a particular ethnic group or country.
It's also vital that voters make rational and just decisions -- the vicious, ignorant and just plain stupid are easy prey for demagogues. At one time in the US, self-government meant informed citizens making rational decisions -- now it means voters seeking to legally pick the contents of their neighbors' pockets or else trying to protect themselves from those who seek to pick the contents of their pockets. Otherwise, the government, the courts, and the bureaucracy ignore the wishes of the people on the overall direction of the country (e.g., on immigration).
I always enjoy reading your posts. There is so much to learn and think about afterwards.
I am replying, basically, to take up your point about one of the negative possible consequences of outsourcing middle-class jobs. While I am a Jeffersonian on trade--almost a Calhounian--this current practice is borderline insane. Why? Because it completely ignores the concept of a true community.
In America we have many communities, both separate and concentric. (An example of concentric communities would be the traditional Caucasian and Negro communities of the old South--and in many Northern locations as well). Booker T. Washington captured the essence of this in his famous address at the Atlanta Exposition, in 1895--the one where he said that in all things that were purely social, we could be as separate as the fingers; yet one as the hand, where the common interest was involved.
This is the same concept, stated with an earthy symbolism not previously captured by anyone so clearly, which made possible the Federal Union. On all matters that relate to the social and cultural values on which the different States differ, they are as independent as the fingers, yet one as the hand, where the common American interests are concerned. (I believe Webster, Clay and Calhoun could have all agreed on the aptness of Booker T. Washington's metaphor, in this broader context.)
This same reality--for it is a reality, without which there would be endless chaos and conflict, even as the Left has sought--is also involved in traditional labor management differences; urban/rural divisions; and in many others.
What outsourcing is doing, however, is making American Corporations increasingly dependent upon persons who do not share any real community of interest. The only common thread is the job; and when a labor/management conflict eventually occurs, as it will, despite all the connivance of the Corporate bureaucracies involved, the potential chaos is something to contemplate--not to mention what happens if we get in a major war.
By the way, have you ever considered whether the general ignorance of geography, virtually endemic in American public school graduates, reflects a similar conceptual disability as that which the Left is able to exploit in making people--White Americans, today, at least--ashamed to identify with their lines of descent? (I am not really suggesting a genetic cause. I do not think the problem genetic at all. Both, I think, reflect an educational system that for various reasons, is no longer willing or able to focus those in their formative years on concrete reality--as opposed to the delusional wish lists of certain theorists.)
Just throwing out a few thoughts, stimulated by your response to my previous post.
Thanks for your kind comments.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site