Multiculturalism's volatile mix

The loyalty of immigrants has been remarkable in Western societies. Canada and the United States have both benefited from it. Lately, however, we've been witnessing a new phenomenon: The immigrant of dubious loyalty. We've also begun to see disloyal native-borns, whether of immigrant ancestry or Islamic conversion. It hasn't happened overnight. To see it in context, it's useful to look at the point of departure.

During the First World War, with statistically insignificant exceptions, immigrants from enemy countries as well as their children remained loyal to Canada and the United States throughout the hostilities.

During the Second World War, although we treated German, Italian, or Japanese immigrants and their descendants shabbily, as a rule they responded with unfailing patriotism. For every Tokyo Rose (the American GI's nickname for Ikuko Toguri, a Japanese-American woman, born in Los Angeles, who broadcast Japanese propaganda during the war) there were thousands of Japanese-American soldiers who gave their lives to fight Fascism.

Some Jews and anti-Fascists who escaped Germany or occupied Europe ended up in Canada or America. Much as these refugees were on our side in the war against Hitler, technically they were enemy aliens. On arrival, they were often placed in internment camps. Many Canadians and Americans of Japanese, Italian, etc., extraction were interned as well, especially on the West Coast. Decades later Canada apologized, first to the Japanese and eventually to the Italian community. But -- and this is the point -- even our small-minded conduct failed to alter the fundamental loyalties of these immigrant groups.

The pattern continued during the Cold War, when former nationals of hostile Communist countries often found refuge in North America. These newcomers of various ethnicity and religion, from Eastern Europe to Vietnam, were at least as supportive of the values and interests of their adopted countries as native-born citizens of western descent. Few Americans opposed the anti-American antics of Fidel Castro as resolutely, for instance, as Florida's ex-Cuban community.

Over the past 30 years, however, a new type of immigrant emerged. He seemed ready to share the West's wealth but not its values. In many ways he resembled an invader more than a settler or a refugee. In addition to immigrant societies like Canada or the United States, the new type affected homogenous countries such as Britain, France, or Holland as well.

Most newcomers continued to be loyal, needless to say. Conflicting loyalties influenced only a fraction. Except this fraction was no longer statistically insignificant.

Instead of making efforts to assimilate -- or accept the cultural consequences of not joining the mainstream, like such previous groups as the Mennonites -- the new type of immigrant demanded changes in the host country's culture. He called on society to accommodate his linguistic or religious requirements.

Sometimes the matter was minor. In 1985, for instance, a Sikh CNR railway worker named Bhinder refused to exchange his turban for a regulation hard hat. Sometimes it wasn't such a minor matter: In 1991, a newly appointed Toronto police board commissioner of Asian extraction, Susan Eng, declined to take the traditional oath to the Queen.

Minor or not, the host societies' usual response was accommodation. Turbans were substituted for hard hats; the language of the police oath was changed. But accommodation only escalated demands. Requests for cultural exemption were soon followed by openly voiced sentiments of disloyalty. By the late 1990s, a Muslim group in Britain called al-Muhajroun (Émigrés), led by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, saw fit to express the view that no British Muslim has any obligation to British law when it conflicts with the law of Allah.

Disturbing as such talk was, it wasn't unlawful. Dissent was within our democratic tradition, although the tradition presumed that the dissenters would be democrats themselves. Alas, the new dissenters were anything but. Some were terrorists, or their cheerleaders. Eventually their "dissent" culminated in the massacre of 9/11. Most of the Muslim militants who crashed airliners into Washington and New York were legal residents in America.

How did this come about? Three reasons seem to stand out. The first two have to do with our culture, the third with the culture of militant Islam.

When we retreated from the principle that immigration should serve the interests of the host country first, our misguided liberalism opened a Pandora's box. Embracing the idea of non-traditional immigration, we seemed to forget that when groups of distant cultural and political traditions arrive in significant numbers, they may establish their own communities not merely as colourful expressions of ethnic diversity -- festivals or restaurants -- but as separate cultural-political entities.

Next, we tried to turn this liability into an asset by promoting multiculturalism. We stopped ascribing any value to integration, and began flirting with the notion that host countries aren't legitimate entities with their own cultures, only political frameworks for various co-existing cultures. To paraphrase William Blake, instead of trying to build Jerusalem in "England's green and pleasant land," we switched to building Beirut.

Finally, in fundamentalist Islam, we've come up against a culture for which the very concept of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's is alien. Puritanical Islam considers that everything belongs to God (or rather, some mullah's idea of God). This concept doesn't allow for a secular or territorial entity, such as a country, to command a higher loyalty than one's faith. If one's religious leader demands the suppression of what he regards as a blasphemous book, the fact that Western constitutions protect free expression is just so much piffle for a true believer. His ultimate goal is a faith-based state, an Islamic theocracy.

Commenting on non-traditional immigration requires a footnote. The problem doesn't arise when people come to Canada from the Levant; the problem arises when people come to recreate the Levant in Canada. That's where non-traditional immigration and multiculturalism become a volatile mix. Extending our values to others is one thing, but modifying our values to suit the values of others is a vastly different proposition. As the late scholar Ernest van den Haag pointed out in 1965, patriotism is not racism. "The wish to preserve one's identity and the identity of one's nation," he wrote in a prescient piece in The National Review, "requires no justification any more than the wish to have one's own children."

By now multiculturalism has made it difficult to safeguard our traditions and ideals against a new type of immigrant whose goal is not to fit in, but to carve out a niche for his own tribe, language, customs, or religion in our country -- or rather in what we're no longer supposed to view as a country but something between Grand Central Station and an empty space. When Canada is no longer regarded as a culture, with its own traditions and narratives, but a tabula rasa, a clean slate, for anyone to write on what he will, immigrants of the new school will be ready with their own texts, including some that aren't very pleasant. The sound you hear is the sharpening of their chisels.

This used to be the standard doctrine concerning immigrants from Italy and Greece. You could find it in every highschool history textbook in the nation.

The earlier Northern and Western European immigrants were described as trustworthy and honest folk who intended to stay and make the United States great. The Italians and Greeks were described as interested only in making a lot of money and going back home to "live it up". Italians were targeted as being particularly obnoxious because they refused to learn English!

Were these charges true?

No, these charges are not true. But do Italians fly planes into buildings? Do Greeks preach for the destruction of the west?

There is a difference between not wanting to learn English and asking allah to destroy the homosexuals, Jews and Americans.

There also is a difference between what people believe and what is real. The fact is that the they import extremists imams and thereby stop the integration proces. Instead of fitting in, there are much more fundamentalists amongst the youths now, notebly the Moroccan youths.

The schoolbooks for islamic schoold published by the foundation al-Waqf contain references that homosexuals, Jews and westerns are lower than pigs and dogs. Also there is called for the kids to later fight people until they convert to islam.

Did these Italian and Greek schoolbooks teached that too?

Has the proportion of 'disloyal' individuals among the immigrant groups who have entered North America during the past half century increased, decreased or remained about the same ? During the first half of the 20th century, there were well-known exemplars of immigrant groups who were widely portrayed as having been strongly opposed to the U.S. government. The best-known paradigms for extremism and disloyalty to the U.S. in earlier times (e.g., Sacco & Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, the Greenglasses, Harry Gold) were immigrant and/or resident Americans, the best-known paradigms in recent times (e.g., The Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh) were resident, not immigrant Americans and they were not remotely connected to Islamic extremism, whereas the best-known paradigms of Islamic extremism against the U.S. (e.g.Bin Laden, Atta and tens of others) have not been immigrant Americans but foreign nationals.

Cultural roots run deep for generations.

I'm trying to get a handle on why so much immigration has been permitted by the various countries. We weren't asked. We are told there will be x more from here and there. A whole industry has built up around resettling immigrants.

In the long run, it isn't going to work. It can't work really. Already we see this in our politicians pandering for the immigrant vote rather than do what is best for the country. I view that as a betrayal of sorts.

The excuse used is that these people do work that native populations no longer want to do. That's only part of the story. What happens when nobody wants to do that work? Already it appears we have subsidized immigrants who don't really contribute to the economies of our respective countries in a meaningful way. They seem to be rootless, do not want to assimilate other than for money, and they are in a "holding" pattern, waiting for something.

I suppose we brought it all upon ourselves when we broke up families, and allowed inflation to spike causing vast wage gaps.

Uncontrolled immigration causes resentment. People are changing and have short fuses everywhere. When we reach flashpoint, I don't know, but I fear it is coming. Europe will bear the brunt for now, but America could end up with a more serious problem because of the political power blocs of the various cultures, namely whites, hispanics and blacks.< Word wrap is on. Halleluia! Was having trouble with new posting system.

No, we certainly were NOT asked in the mid-1960s when Robert Kennedy convinced Congress to change the laws & admit more third-world immigrants so we could have more "diversity." Then the "family reunification" act made it virtually certain that few European *Caucasian* immigrants could come to the US. They obviously did not have the large extended families and thus couldn't bring in every cousin, sibling, niece, nephew etc.

I knew it probably had something to do with Democrats. And I don't have anything against diversity per se. It's just that we already had plenty of diversity and problems to go with it.

Our mistake was in ripping up countries by destabilizing their governments and rather than trying to help them rebuild a workable society in their own country, we brought too many of them here.

What really ticks me off is that we haven't assimilated the blacks yet. There was plenty of work and progress to help them better themselves, but we gave up on them as unable to learn and brought others in instead.

I'm just rambling here, but I've watched this country go downhill in every way except economically and it is too late to turn back the clock. I try not to resent these people but I look at my own and wonder how on earth they will be able to compete with the "foreigners" who get all kinds of breaks our people don't.

Another problem no one has touched on is that these people flock to the cities because they can't afford to buy farms. Many of them would lack the knowhow of American farmers anyway.

What happens if the bubble eventually breaks?

The only solution is to keep artifically stimulating the economy. The economy now takes precedence over people. Naturally the two are intertwined but the almighty dollar rules.

When we retreated from the principle that immigration should serve the interests of the host country first, our misguided liberalism opened a Pandora's box.

I wish that that "liberalism" had only been misguided. The guides, unfortunately, who were themselves from the "Liberal" academic community, knew exactly where they were guiding their flocks. This has all been part of a Fabian movement for a new world order, based upon the pretense of an undifferentiated humanity. It is a very cruel and neurotic pursuit that does not gain greater credibility because those who push it like to fancy that they have some sort of moral high ground.

For more on the mindset that seeks to break down clear senses of National identity, see Myths and Myth Makers in American "Higher" Education. (Some of the names will be very familiar to those who have graduated from American colleges over the past half century.)

For a serious look at how immigration policy should be determined in a rational way, see Immigration & The American Future.

What is really sad about the "misguided liberals," is that we all lose, when they prevail. In place of a world where different peoples really learn to live in a peace based upon traditional borders and mutual respect, they offer only a world based upon repression of normal instincts, denial of reason and love, and closeted hate and resentment. We need to take back the West from the neurotics who in their fear of reality, betray it.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

Sometime in the 1930s the Italian, Greek and Balkan anarchists quit tossing bombs at each other and the police and began to settle down and become real Americans.

If Mexican immigrants caused half the mayhem the Italians and Greeks caused in the 1920s we would be putting them on trucks and shipping them back left and right.

That's why I raised the bait - to see if anyone had any recall of why those folks were sbject to such criticism at the time.

My favorite chip dip is made with a green onion powder processed in Israel.

At the moment it is not being produced.

Seems like a minor issue, but I know that the cause is that the Palestinian employees are unable to go to work in the Israeli owned factory due to the high level of violence.

I'd like to have some more of that powder, and would, in fact, be willing to pay a higher price for it. The employees of that factory would like to be making the powder so that they can get paid. The owners would like to be able to have it on hand so they can sell it.

All this concern about who insulted who - the human focus - has messed up the economy and we are all unhappy. My joy will return only when I can buy more powder, the employees can be paid their earnings, and the factory owners can declare a profit!

The emphasis on the economy in the article I read referred to our economy as impacted by what is happening in Israel.

It's hard to imagine how those people manage when they can't get to their jobs.

That onion powder sounds great. Mix it with some sour cream or cream cheese. Where do you get it? Now you made me hungry. I don't even know where I can get halvah any more. Love that stuff.

Izzi Cohen, the now deceased and former owner of Giant Grocery in the WarshDC area, discovered this product in Israel many years ago. I have been purchasing it for at least 20 years, so his discovery was probably long before.

It's different than most onion powders made out of cooked onions. They are all brown due to carmelization of the sugar. This stuff is just dried and powdered green onion. Remembering back on it (my last pack went into the sour cream about 2 months ago), I would guess that it was about half onion and half leek. There were NO ADDITIVES!

We usually bought it in large lots - which meant find a Giant, go in, clear the shelves!

I am sorry this discussion made you hungry, but can you imagine how we feel knowing that the custom of 20 years of mixing up Giant's green onion powder with sour cream can no longer be continued.

This green onion powder business is significant in that it shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians can work together to produce one of the best products in the world.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.