How Multiculturalism Took Over America

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | July 9, 2004 | Lawrence Auster

[rmlew]

This is both the most far reaching and depressing piece I have read inquite some time.

The self-proclaimed defenders of our culture no longer seem willing to define it, much less promote it. Having defined America as an idea, they fail to see the heritage and framework of that idea.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

This is a big load of crap.

For instance it states

Multiculturalists argue that minority and non-Western cultures have been unjustly excluded in the past from full participation in our culture The final word should actually be society not culture. There is no single American culture and there never was. And it totally ignored the course of events in American history.

I think very few would disagree that America was founded on the principle of equality. At first that equlity only meant white, landed males, but as our "culture" changed the definition changed with it. This is the nature of "cutlure". It is not stagnant, but fluid. The only "culture" that does not constantly change and adapt are those that are dead like Greek, Roman or French.

When settlers in America were primarily British, the influx of Europeans with different cultures invariably altered theirs. (acutally the history of people constantly pushing east to west even in Europe altered cultures there too). There is a reason we call Brits Anglo-Saxons and not Celts.

Therefore, to claim that the influence that immigrants have on American society is a negative one, is a load of crap that just allows lefties to label conservatives as racists.

Lastly, on the issue of language, we are also talking about a fluid and ever changing medium. The only languages that don't change are dead languages (again, ancient Greek, Latin, French). Listen to how other languages are spoken by educated persons and you will here a suprising amount of English. This is what Latin did to native languages 2000 years ago.

What also seems to be forgotten here is that a multilingual soceity tends to create individuals who can speak both languages not one or the other. This has been proven time and again in Europe and elsewhere. The only valid point is that new immigrants to the US should be given every incentive to learn English because a common language is the basis of (relative) harmony andunderstanding in American civic life.

Otherwise you are falling into a logic trap that allows you to condone the type of attitudes that the left succesfully pins on the right to win elections (with only minor amounts of voting fraud.)

[RWR8189]

Quite an article.

Thanks for posting it.

[AnimalLover]

Ping

[NutCrackerBoy]

Conservatives ... must become conservative in fact as well as in name, meaning that their primary devotion must be to the preservation of our underlying moral, cultural, and political order, rather than to its transformation and dissolution through the ever more radical project of global equality and inclusion. Liberalism, in the sense of the rule of law obeyed and enjoyed equally by all, is central to what we are. But if liberalism is not to become the path to Western suicide, it must operate within a social and moral order that is not itself liberal. -Lawrence Auster

Very long, but quite a good read. It set parts of my brain arguing with other parts of it. It was impossible for me not to feel annoyed that the author was being reactionary. Yet he is saying exactly what I myself believe, and applying those insights to the commonplaces around us.

[tm22721]

How, so quickly and effortlessly, did this alien belief system take over our country?

With this question posed at the end of the first paragraph, was I rightly expecting that there should be a cogent history of multiculturalism presented ?

Instead we have a potpourri of disjointed ideas that stand on their own merits but don't answer the original intriguing question.

BUMP

[AK2KX]

CWII Ping?

[Paleo Conservative]

In other words, these minority cultures must be regarded as having the same public importance as America's historic majority culture. Moreover, we are told, this equal and public inclusion of different cultures does not threaten our culture, but "enriches" it. By this reasoning, if we became (say) an officially bilingual society, with Spanish appearing alongside English on every cereal box and street sign in the land (as is done with the two languages of Canada), our culture would not be harmed in the slightest. We would only be including something we once excluded. We would have become something more, not less. What could be more positive? How could any decent person object?

But if all cultures are equal, why just have labels in Spanish and English? Why not French, German, Russian, Hindi, etc.? Anyway lots of Spanish speakers in this country are not really of Spanish European origin but from Central or South American Indian stock. In many cases the native languages of their ancestors were forced into extinction by Spanish imperialism. Of course the Spanish isn't even the native language of the European population of Spain. During the time of the Roman Empire, Spain was home to germanic tribes like the Goths and Vandals who spoke germanic lanquages. It was the Romans who conquered Spain who introduced Latin there. Over the centuries the Spanish language evolved from Latin. Of course even before the germanic tribes moved into Spain there were pre-existing populations of unknown origins who spoke languages that are not of Indo-European origin. Among these are the Basques. But before any of the modern human populations were in Spain there were Neanderthals there. Apparently there is no indication that the Neanderthals left any decendants in the modern populations of Europe including Spain. So anyway, if all cultures are of equal value, why just have a few Indo-European imperialist languages on the labels?

[Mark17]

CWII Ping?

Unfortunately, I believe it is coming.

[Paleo Conservative]

But--and this is the point overlooked both by the multiculturalists and their conservative universalist opponents?that means taking Western culture away from Westerners. The debate becomes a debate between the global multiculturalists on the left, and the global universalists on the so-called right, with no one standing up for the historical Western culture.

[Adder]

I disagree that its crap.
While it is true that America has been positively changed by the assimilation of other cultures, that is not what multiculturalism is about. It IS about balkanization and the destruction of Western values. It is avowed, as any google search will show, that the "deconstruction" of history is to strip western culture of its significance and values. It is a far cry from assimilating other people who come here.
One of the main tenets of that western is individualism and the right and freedom of the person to pursue his dreams and goals. That is what is under attack by the multiculturalists.
Another is the development of the scientific method by Western culture. That too is under attack by those who want to make all ideas valid especially if they are from some perceived "oppressed" minority. In that view, Afrocentrist "history" is every bit as valid and indeed is more correct than the western study of history. The FACT that afrocentrism is unsupportable by any facts is brushed away as "racist" etc.
Further, the attack against reading and studying the "literature" of western culture denies the student...all students...with the basis for the reasons this country is the way it is. It precludes the philosophers whose theories have molded much of the underlying assumptions of Western culture and denies that western culture by its very success should be emulated, preserved and celebrated.
Lastly, the deconstruction of western culture allows demagogues like Hillary Clinton to stand before an audience and state with a straight face that "We are going to take it from you for the common good", because it fosters socialism through the "celebration and inclusion" of factional neo-tribalism.
The author hits a homer with this article.

[Skooz]

bump for later after the coffee kicks in.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

There is no single American culture and there never was.

Preposterous nonsense I normally wouldn't expect to read on this site. I suppose this country never had a single language immigrants aspired to learn and teach their children, either?

Welcome to Bosnia, where cultures fight endlessly for predominance and no self-described "victims" are ever happy with their share.

You want diversity? Look at the the way it's working out so far in the UN.

[Paleo Conservative]

Unable to grasp the radical essence of his own ideas, the moderate liberal always ends up believing that he can eat his civilization and have it.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

The discussion of multiculturalism reveals the "unspoken truth" dilemma. The unspoken truth is that there is a relatively clear hierarchy of achievement among cultures. Basically, Western, Judeo-Christian culture created the modern world and all of its benefits (and problems). That thought is intolerable to members of other cultures as it breeds a justifiable sense of inferiority. Ultimately, that is the issue that underlies all of the back-and-forth debate about multiculturalism.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Therefore, to claim that the influence that immigrants have on American society is a negative one, is a load of crap that just allows lefties to label conservatives as racists.

You are obviously a multiculturalist, so this may not reach you but: The effects of immigration are usually positive if and only if the immigrants are interested in assimilation into the American dream. That is they seek to understand the society they have joined and accept that hard work and equal opportunity will lead to their own success. I don't mean they must drop their primary language, but they need to also learn english.

Where immigration fails to have a positive effect, you can find that the immigrants have pulled together to allow them to exist in their primary language and customs and claim they are the victims of the very racism you say conservatives will be accused of. Then the primary society says, OK, you are right, we are being unfair to you. We will demand that all literature be published in your language so you are not excluded. Then we provide social services and welfare, also in their own languange. Then we argue that employers should hire more of these minorities because they are not up to the percentage that they have in society at large, and on and on. Multiculturalism changes the society that did exist, and does so without a debate or legislative action. It is being done by social pressure and legal decisions of liberal judges.

The only valid point is that new immigrants to the US should be given every incentive to learn English because a common language is the basis of (relative) harmony andunderstanding in American civic life.

This is valid, every incentive includes intensive english in early schooling, without the multiyear bilingual approach which has been proven not to work. Likewise, the schools need to remind students of the positive points in our history without emphasis on the facts that the country as founded allowed slavery (which has since been abolished) and that the founding fathers were all land holders and white men (what does it matter when they developed the set of laws that led to the greatest country in the world.) You see the subtle way that you end up accepting multiculturalism and arguing that an article that points out its flaws is "a load of crap"?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

That is they seek to understand the society they have joined and accept that hard work and equal opportunity will lead to their own success. I don't mean they must drop their primary language, but they need to also learn english.

I would argue that nearly all legal and most illegal immigrants to the United States and there to work hard and strive toward the American dream. They do their best to learn the language and customs under the usually tough circumstances they find themselves economically. And, they want their children to be American in every sense. This is the way it was in the past, and there is no reason for it to have changed. Naturalized Americans are often the most fervent patriots.

Where immigration fails to have a positive effect, you can find that the immigrants have pulled together to allow them to exist in their primary language and customs

Without exception, immigrants from Europe banded together in communities of other immigrants. Little Italy, German town, Spanish Harlem are just a few names of the many communnities that came to America, worked hard and became citizens.

Now - and this is the main point - if the children of these immigrants still do not speak English and understand the American culture that is where there is a real problem. If these natural born Americans do not follow the paths of other 1st generations we have an issue.

Otherwise, you are merely re-expressing the opinions that followed the last massive wave of immigration to the US at the turn of the previous century.

Sure it is tough to absorb all those different cutlures and people and naturally it has an effect on the culture. In the past it made America stronger and will do so again in the future.

Yes, there are limits and language should be one of them. Given the increasingly fluid border with Mexico, and their trucks about to enter the US, bi-lingual signs may not be so terrible. My question (and I really don't know) is this a trend outside of the border region?

[CatoRenasci]

Sie sind eine unendliche Rindvieh.