Chris: First, I do not see any conflict between multiculturalism and you (or anyone) celebrating and defending their own culture.
[...]
...As a First Amendment absolutist...

Chris, you cannot be both a First Amendment absolutist and a multiculturalist. I see now that you are in the position of that poor benighted California white girl described above by sN, who seems to be unaware that she has a culture and a heritage. Like you, she no doubt thinks "culture" is all that surface stuff like tasty cuisines and religious rituals which enrich our cities and towns (i.e. entertain whiter people) while not possessing any serious understanding or appreciation of either her own or any other culture. Thus you can come to the preposterous belief that a saints' day parade is "culture" but the First Amendment comes out of nowhere. But the First Amendment is the product of a particular culture that flourished in a particular civilization. To deplore the destruction of this distinct view of man in society - embodied in the First Amendment, and a millenium in the making - in Canada or Britain, without acknowledging that it is the creed of "multiculturalism" that has wrought this destruction, is an exercise in the profoundest dishonesty. That "but, but, they're not practicing my ideal, precious notion of multiculturalism" doesn't wash, Chris. Multiculturalism is as multiculturalism does, in the real world. The U.S. is not magically exempt from the debilitating, freedom-sundering, and eventually balkanizing processes of multiculturalism that beset other human societies, just because, at one time in the past, it was an underpopulated, aggressively confident nation (in every sense of the word) that was reasonably successful at beating a bunch of overwhelmingly European, Christian immigrants into a cohesive polity.

Political culture cannot be abstracted from the rest of a culture. Any perusal of a sampling of newspapers from anywhere will reveal that many, if not most, of the people in the world, including many newcomers to our own fair land, truly, deeply, do not "get", for example, free speech. And they don't not "get it" because it is, intellectually, an inherently difficult concept to grasp, but because it is culturally alien to them. It doesn't fit in with the rest of their system, their world view, nor is their any reason why it should. But immigration into a culture in which the concept of free speech meshes with the rest of the cultural gears is by necessity going to require some degree of cultural discombobulation, and shedding, on the immigrant's part. And no, Chris, he cannot continue to "celebrate his culture" in toto. He is going to have to ditch the parts that don't mesh.

Now, I know you agree with that last bit in the abstract, Chris, but I doubt you'd be willing to put your foot down for a concrete particular. You simply don't accept the degree of "my way or the highway" that it is actually necessary for the host culture to exert in order to inculcate respect for the profound cultural values embodied in the First Amendment.

What would you do if confronted, face to face, with, say, some young be-headscarfed Muslim demanding the censure of some person or other for "insulting Islam", and trotting out the unfortunately common "Of course I support free speech, but free speech doesn't mean the right to offend someone's religious beliefs"? (I'm using a Muslim in my example as I have no doubt of your courage in defending my right to make fun of some Southern Baptist creationist.) I somehow don't see you saying, re the sacred right of free speech, "'Get it', toots, or get out". And despite your chest-thumping, I suspect you would be the first one to scream "racist!" or "xenophobe!" at any citizen who had the temerity to say so. I do not doubt for an instant that if confronted with this situation, you would do anything but put the hammer down and say "Sorry, but you're going to have to ditch that aspect of your culture and religious belief if you want to be an American. To be 'one of us', you must regard this right as sacrosanct." Nah, the smart money would be on you sidetracking everything into a discussion of the Sins of the White Man and the Evils of Colonialism - anything, anything but laying down the law. Which is what must be done, of course, if these sacred rights are to survive, and that's where the battle must be joined - right then and there, no ifs, ands, or buts, a direct and unequivocal NO.

And no, Chris, the U.S. has not been a "multicultural" nation in the modern sense. It pretended to be "multicultural" and "multi-ethnic" and "multi-religious" while being overwhelmingly European and Christian. It's easy to plume yourself on what a "multicultural" success you are when the vast majority believes that it simply goes without saying that, say, polygamy is not acceptable, English is the unifying, shared public language, and did not revolt and bedevil the courts with lawsuits over Christmas being made a national holiday. The "men who created the legal and philosophical underpinnings that have enabled us to thrive" did not, as a matter of fact, "create the underpinnings" - they were already there. They codified them in a particularly admirable way, and created institutions to protect them, that have worn pretty well - but they inherited the legal and philosophic foundations.

Posted by: Moira Breen on March 22, 2009 2:34 PM

What would you do if confronted, face to face, with, say, some young be-headscarfed Muslim demanding the censure of some person or other for "insulting Islam", and trotting out the unfortunately common "Of course I support free speech, but free speech doesn't mean the right to offend someone's religious beliefs"?

Having always taken the stance that the answer to hateful language is (a) recognizing it for what it is and (b) speaking out against it, not censoring it, I expect I would do what I've always done and defend the racist bigot's right to be an asshole, pointing out that nothing should be off limits under free speech ... as I've done many times with people who share some, but not all, of my own socio-political beliefs (i.e. leftists who might come far closer to the negative stereotypes their detractors accuse them of) when they want someone else's free speech rights infringed upon to sooth their sensibilities.

As noted previously, I believe that the full integration of various peoples into a variegated whole is the antidote to balkanization, not separate-but-equal groups each operating on separate if not equal systems of justice, etc.

And if using St.Patty's Day parades as a symbol of Irish culture is simplistic, well, what does one expect of a few hundred word blog comment, the Rise and Fall of All World Civilizations?

Oh, and do you include the socio-political attributes of Iroquois Confederacy as part of your understanding of the inherited legal and philosophical foundations for our system?

Posted by: Chris White on March 22, 2009 3:25 PM

"The men who created the underpinnings..."

Yes, Moira, you're right to focus on Chris W's use of that word to describe what the Founding Fathers did. It's not simply that Chris is full of doo-doo arguing that the accomplishment of the FFs was to make a multicultural society possible that could absorb wave after wave of immigrants. They did nothing of the sort, of course.

The real problem with his formulation lies in the word "create". That word allows Chris to treat America as a purely propositional nation, nay an utterly invented one, not a nation rooted firmly in the values of Christian Europe, especially those particular culturally specific manifestations of Christian Europe, the British common law, empiricist philosophy and the English language itself.

And much else besides. It is the particularity, the linguistic and cultural rootedness of the US, its historicity, its being-this-and-not-that, that gnostic, a prioristic, moralizing fanatics like Chris White most hate and most want to see destroyed.

Even though, ironically, their own quasi-Puritanical atonement-obsessed city-on-a-hill bullsh*t is utterly and inescapably American: degenerate New England Calvinist variety.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 22, 2009 5:39 PM

...St.Patty's Day...

When did Saint Patrick get the sex change?

Posted by: David Fleck on March 22, 2009 10:44 PM

dougjnn: I believe you are right about the importance (and direction) of Jewish influence on the immigration debate, but you are all wet about the motives.

For instance, you suggest that

many Jews actively want non Jewish whites to be a minority in this country... no one other group being the majority either... That way any chance of a Nazi like purge of Jews... can be made... even more remote

That's absurd. Such a Plot would be useless even if it was achieved - Jews have been savagely persecuted in many societies where there was no dominant majority. For instance, Mark Twain described the riots of 1898 in Habsburg Bohemia:

...in some cases the Germans being the rioters, in others the Czechs -- and in all cases the Jew had to roast...

No, the Jewish motive is much simpler, and largely unconscious. For two thousand years, wherever they lived, Jews have been foreigners, usually despised and frequently unwanted. They have an ingrained allergy toward any sort of cultural nativism. When they hear "immigration restriction", in their subconscious they hear "We're gonna send your grandmother back to die in Auschwitz" and "Taste Cossack leather, zhid scum!"

There is also "Ellis Island nostalgia". For Jewish immigrants, the U.S. was a Promised Land and they embraced it passionately (vide Irving Berlin). Denying others the same opportunity seems wrong.

Thus it is that Jews instinctively, reflexively support loose or open immigration. Indirect Jewish influence is important as well. This Jewish attitude naturally bleeds into fiction, drama, and commentary produced by Jews (which is a hugely disproportionate share) and is subconsciously absorbed by the rest of us.

As to Paul Craig Roberts: I have no use for CounterPunch, for "America 2050" - or for him. He long ago wandered into the fever swamps,
and A2050 is actually right to call out CounterPunch on this.

One of the unfortunate facts of the immigration debate is that political correctness (of a traditional sort) has partially suppressed one side. Much of what needs to be said is being said only by bigots and cranks. That's my problem with Vdare - they have some really nasty people there. (Not Sailer.)

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on March 22, 2009 10:47 PM

1. From a few years back, one of Mark Steyn's apt descriptions of the West's response to absolutist, violence-prone, Islamist immigrants:

In other words, if you threaten to kill people often enough, it will be seen as part of your vibrant cultural tradition -- and, by definition, we're all cool with that. Celebrate diversity, etc. Our tolerant multicultural society is so tolerant and multicultural we'll tolerate your intolerant uniculturalism. Your antipathy to diversity is just another form of diversity for us to celebrate.

He contrasts that with the succession of free-speech prosecutions of Oriana Fallaci for "racism" and "xenophobia," ended only by her death.

2. The New York Times published numerous editorials and op-eds on the Danish cartoons, most urging apology, restrained response, heightened sensitivity to bruised Muslim sensibilities. Despite spilling all this ink, neither they nor any other major U.S. newspaper ever published the cartoons themselves. Were it not for the internet, you'd never have seen them.

Multiculturalism is cruel and incoherent because justice and logical consistency are not its values. Instead, its devotees focus on the guilt of some people and the acquisition of power by others.

Posted by: AMac on March 22, 2009 11:21 PM

Michael Blowhard--

I'm going to tell you right now that your comment moderation policy is BS, and a good part of why your numbers while good, aren't higher.

No I don't excuse your delays. They piss me off.

Almost all popular blogs with comments DO NOT follow your policy. They moderate AFTER the fact, not before it. By banning problem posters. This can be absused in a political way, but I do trust that you'd only do it in avoiding spam or serious trolls or other abuse hurlers.

Spam per se, real spam, does not seem to be much of a problem on other blogs.

E.g., how can Roissy, who's a lot more high profile controversial than you guys are, not pre post moderate comments but you have to? Makes no sense.

And it's highly annoying.

But most of the rest of what you do is great.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 2:12 AM

Apropos of some of the discussion here regarding the US as a multicultural nation from its inception there is an interesting link on the Arts & Letters Daily site today to an article in The City Journal by Myron Magnet about the life of Alexander Hamilton. Below a few quotes that touch on this topic.:

Our American culture embraces a host of microcultures—local traditions and ways of seeing the world that spring from some particular history and make different groups express our common Americanism in their own distinctive accents. The egalitarian Quaker culture of Philadelphia, to take sociologist Digby Baltzell’s example, nurtured many fewer who made it into the Dictionary of American Biography than Boston’s more individualist Puritanism, while historian David Hackett Fischer has shown how the “folkways” of colonists from four different British regions, with their own variants of Protestantism, subtly molded the character of the sections of America they settled, so that their inhabitants ended up even with differently inflected understandings of the idea of liberty.

And then—as if Jews weren’t bad enough—Quakers appeared in the Long Island village of Vlissingen. When Stuyvesant forbade the villagers, mostly English, from taking them in, they disobeyed, citing in their 1657 “Flushing Remonstrance,” one of the foundation documents of American religious liberty, the Dutch principle that “love peace and libertie” must extend even to “Jewes Turkes and Egiptians”

Russell Shorto in The Island at the Center of the World, his dazzling history of Dutch New York, “this island city would become the first multiethnic, upwardly mobile society on America’s shores, a prototype of the kind of society that would be duplicated throughout the country.”

Posted by: Chris White on March 23, 2009 2:39 PM

Chris White --

The problem with your latter comments in this thread is...

Scratch that. It's not really a problem.

An observation: you passionately discuss historical events that have little to do with the modern phenomenon of Multiculturalism, as it is actually practiced today.

Use your skills to show your support of the positions of Ward Churchill, or La Raza, or the faculty enablers of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax, or the white-privilege self-criticism curriculum. Then your defense of multiculti will ring true.

Posted by: AMac on March 23, 2009 5:30 PM

Amac An observation: you passionately discuss historical events that have little to do with the modern phenomenon of Multiculturalism, as it is actually practiced today

Actually, today's multiculturalism came about because of historical events that happened so long ago. It was/is looked at partially as a way of righting past wrongs.

Anybody care give me their definition of multiculturalism?

Posted by: chic noir on March 23, 2009 6:32 PM

Chic -- I think you may be accepting Multiculturalism at its word. That's like believing an ad rather than evaluating the actual product.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 23, 2009 6:42 PM

Why should I seek to defend those with views that differ from my own? My view of multiculturalism has nothing to do with Ward Churchill or La Raza et al and everything to do with a life enriched by friends and acquaintances who are White and Black and Persian and German and Jewish and Hispanic and ... My views may be more left than right or more green than red/blue, but they are not doctrinaire, nor based on allegiance to some group's manifesto. My take on multiculturalism and related topics is based on my own observations and experiences as, I imagine, are those of others posting here. If someone believes themselves to be the victim of reverse discrimination, that will give him a different view than someone of mixed race ancestry who thinks she has been doubly discriminated against. Unless someone identifies their views as being in support of a particular group or well known spokesperson for a specific organizaton's view I presume they speak for themselves.

I live in a state well known as one of the whitest in the nation ... just outside a city that has for decades been a refugee relocation center. That latter fact means the city has an elementary school with a robust ESL program dealing with kids who speak over 100 different languages. We have as part of the community Somalis and Cambodians and Ukrainians and the list goes on and on. Not to forget the Franco-Americans or the various neighborhoods that reflect the Italian, Irish, Greek, etc. heritages their inhabitants.

As for the historical tangent, it seemed to spring from my response to the question asked by David Fleck on March 22, 2009 11:23 AM to the effect that I consider the US closest to what I would consider the multicultural ideal.

Posted by: Chris White on March 23, 2009 6:59 PM

Chic noir --

I could describe multiculturalism as I see it practiced, but that would be rather noir, and rather distant from the qualities professed by the movement itself.

The post-modernist assertion is that it is the non-adherents who are in a house of mirrors, but that does not make it so.

Perhaps it would be more useful if a supporter of multiculti offered a definition of their movement.

A definition that was coherent, and positive, and consistent with the many appalling acts perpetrated in its name (examples throughout this thread) would be instructive.

Posted by: AMac on March 23, 2009 7:12 PM

...defend the racist bigot...

Wait -- how did Moira's 'young be-headscarfed Muslim demanding the censure of some person or other for "insulting Islam"' become proof of that other person's being, in Chris White's words, a "racist bigot"?

Posted by: David Fleck on March 23, 2009 7:12 PM

Michael please post your definition of multiculturalism. I've read Webster's definition but it seems that everyone defines the word differently.

Posted by: chic noir on March 23, 2009 7:17 PM

Chris White:

Why should I seek to defend those with views that differ from my own? My view of multiculturalism has nothing to do with Ward Churchill or La Raza et al and everything to do with a life enriched by friends and acquaintances who are White and Black and Persian and German and Jewish and Hispanic and ... My views may be more left than right or more green than red/blue, but they are not doctrinaire, nor based on allegiance to some group's manifesto.

Translation:

"As long as I circumscribe my political discourse to sufficiently idealized and irrelevantly abstract notions, I will be spared the uncomfortable task of confronting what is actually occurring on the ground, as it plays itself out in the real world."

Posted by: Tupac Chopra on March 23, 2009 10:11 PM

Chic Noir--

Multiculturalism stems from the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism, and was imported into this country first influentially by Franz Boaz, who's disciples including Margette Mead (who massively lied about her highly influential in American society at large field work in Samoa as Marxists are wont to do in service of their beliefs) have dominated or really almost completely taken over American cultural anthropology ever since. But it's influence only started in anthropology in this country; it moved into sociology, psychiatry (Eric Fromm in particular), history, psychology and on and on.

It's cultural Marxism. It's the belief that all cultures are inherently equal in all respects. It's the belief that if only the dominant culture is nice enough to other cultures, all will automatically live in harmony, and the dominant culture too will be enriched and in all ways better off.

In the real world different cultures are strong in different things. No culture is better at everything than all other cultures. They also clash and don't always just naturally get along great if only the dominant culture is nice enough. the dominant culture in Britain is leaning over backwards to be nice to it's Muslims, and they just seem to take more and more advantage of this rather supine reaction to their widespread sheltering and supporting of a small number of actual terrorists, and their increasing demands for different standards of freedom of speech and even a whole separate legal system (sharia) for them.

Does that help you?

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 10:46 PM

Chic Noir--

Multiculuralism leads to the belief for those true to it's core tenants, that there's nothing wrong with female genital mutilation where it occurs traditonally in Africa because, well that's a long standing cultural belief and practice in those places. Most leftists who usually embrace multiculturalism think that is horrible and oppose it; however they rarely square this with their multiculturalism.

There are very many other cases like this.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 10:51 PM

Chris, I agree with most of what you say on this issue, but I think you're being a little idealistic. Or, because of where you live, aren't seeing the mainstream experience of this issue. Your description of your local school with its strong ESL program is awesome, as long as the goal behind the ESL program is to teach those kids to speak, read and write English, and not as a concurrent program in another language.

I live in California and love the incredibly diverse population here, the languages, the food, the music, all of it. But, I draw the line at fundamentally changing the country to accommodate immigrants. Mostly I'm referring to language. I think everyone should be bilingual, languages should be taught much earlier in our schools, but English should remain the official language, and the goal of every immigrant should be to learn it to fluency.

As a teacher, I dealt with many Hispanic parents who had been here for 10 years + and could not speak even basic English. That's bullshit, as far as I'm concerned. I speak enough Spanish to get by and would always give them a disappointed "No Ingles?" as in, "Really, no English after all these years?" Then forge ahead in Spanish.

Changing course a bit, I heard a report on the fucking insanity going on in Juarez with the drug violence. Decades of immigrants, mostly male, leaving their families and working in the US meant generation of young boys growing up without fathers. Some of the border towns are almost devoid of men from 20-50 years old. Result? Warrior/drug culture is adopted. And of course since a good percentage of Mexico's GDP comes from those men sending money back home, the Mexican government doesn't really have to build up a sustainable economy.

I'm pretty much done with idealistic views of immigration. They do both the departure and arrival countries a disservice.

That said, I'm far to the left of most of the commenters here. I hold no ill feelings nor feelings of superiority towards Hispanics or any other immigrant population. My anger is towards the immigration policy as it stands.

Posted by: JV on March 23, 2009 10:53 PM

If Moira can make the presumption that "... the smart money would be on you sidetracking everything into a discussion of the Sins of the White Man and the Evils of Colonialism" why can't I make the presumption that in her hypothetical the "some person or other" accused of insulting Islam actually WAS insulting Islam in a particularly nasty way? That is the point after all, isn't it? If our "some person or other" was truly innocent of insulting Islam it would be far easier for me or anyone else to stand up and defend the ideal of free speech, but less meaningful. The difficult part of supporting free speech is accepting and defending the right of someone to express views we consider abhorrent and hateful, but which are not criminally threatening.

Tupac - Bulls**t. When I "confront what is actually occurring on the ground, as it plays itself out in the real world" I can look around the world and see fanatical Islamists doing horrible things. I can see rabid xenophobes doing horrible things. I can see the Chinese or Rwandans or the Crips & Bloods in L.A., or (insert any group here)... doing horrible things. It would seem that this is part of the human condition and has been since the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. So what?

When the challenge is to defend something I don't believe in, why should I? To my eyes the biggest conflict of all right now is between Fundamentalist extremism and Moderation. Why should I defend some extremists? Especially if to do so makes my opponent's point for them.

I live in the real world and on the ground I see the ladies in their chadors going shopping and their little boys learning to skateboard. The woman who came here as a refugee from some African hellhole or other bags my groceries. The bands in town include that crazy Russian drummer and the great guitar player from Guatemala, or is he from El Salvador, hey, you know, these days, he's my neighbor here in Maine. And a damn fine guitarist. That's my real world.

Posted by: Chris White on March 23, 2009 11:08 PM

Chris, your last comment illustrates exactly my criticism of your, IMO, idealistic view of immigration. Sprinklings of immigrants here and there to add to the local color is awesome. Entire school districts where the vast majority of the student population is very recent first generation who may or may not speak any English and whose parent definitely don't speak English, is not so awesome. It is actually a huge drain on resources and morale.

If all of those immigrants were here legally, then fine. But that's not the case, not by a long shot. It's just not sustainable.

And on a personal note, I admit to not enjoying going 3 towns over from where I live to go to work and entering what looks like another country. I LOVE travel and experiencing other cultures. But I like to come home to mine and know that it will continue in a reasonably recognizable manner.

Posted by: JV on March 23, 2009 11:41 PM

Chic Noir--

Oh and the historical answer and resolution to questions such as which culture is better, was.... wait for it.

War.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 11:46 PM

In practice mulitculuralism means that the majority culture should lean over backwards, against it's own interests, in accommodating and catering to all other cultures in it's midst or who come knocking, wishing to be in it's midst.

Supposedly because that won't hurt it. While the doctrine vilanizes any analysis that says it will, and a lot.

Hey, immigration of the talented from every corner of the world, every, is a good thing. Mass immigration irregardless of skills levels, often illegals but not only, of those subject to affirmative action isn't.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 12:37 AM

Michael--

I would like to see a response to my rant against your comment moderation before letting through policy, creating huge delays in posting, versus the normal popular blog policy of policing by banning after the fact, for those guilty of non political pollution. (Before the fact review runs at least as much risk or arbitrary political censorship. Depends on the blog owner(s) and the culture they establish.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 12:40 AM

'If Moira can make the presumption that "... the smart money would be on you sidetracking everything into a discussion of the Sins of the White Man and the Evils of Colonialism" why can't I make the presumption that in her hypothetical the "some person or other" accused of insulting Islam actually WAS insulting Islam in a particularly nasty way?'

You can make whatever presumptions you want, Mr. White. I just wanted you to clarify your response.

Posted by: David Fleck on March 24, 2009 7:31 AM

Anyone who honestly reviews my comments already knows that I do not support massive immigration and favor tighter borders. I simply don't like seeing fellow peons demonized due to their ethnicity because it just serves the interests of the elites to have us fighting amongst ourselves rather than focusing on those who benefit the most from the status quo.

Like JV, I think kids should learn at least one other language as young as possible. Whether that language is the language of their ancestors or simply one of the languages useful for their future is a parent's choice. Given that English is the dominant language in the world today for cross-cultural communication, for business, etc. I don't fear that it will disappear.

To me the problem of massive illegal immigration, while it may have a tangential relationship to multiculturalism, is not the same topic. It is IMHO possible to both abhor the situation with the drug cartels along the SW border and still applaud the richness of cultural diversity that various groups bring to our collective community.

Posted by: Chris White on March 24, 2009 8:11 AM

Canada is considered (rightly) to be at the forefront of multiculturalism. Well, the forefront continues to evolve: if Canada is the heart of multiculturalism, then the Multiculturalism Branch of the Federal Goverment is the heart of the heart.

And the Multi Branch has just moved to the Citizenship & Immigration department, where it is now considered part of the process of INTEGRATION of immigrants into Canada. This is the new cutting-edge of multiculturalism. Canada (Ontario) crushed a proposal to introduce sharia law into our courts, we have restricted our overly generous family reunification program, we shamelessly apply a points system to determine which immmigrants are desirable EVEN IF IT HAS DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT on certain, ah, "ethnic" groups. And we don't even care if we've committed "historical crimes" against any of those groups (we're just so much less "idealistic" than Chris White). We just add up the points, and if you don't have enough, well Mister Tired Poor and Hungry, you're just SOL.

The fact is, Canada, by being so much thinner on the cultural/historical/demographic ground compared to YOU PEOPLE DOWN THERE, has had to confront the challenge of mass immmigration and multiculturalism rather more quickly than you. And we're already coming out the other side.

Points systems for immigrants. Restricted family reunification. Multiculturalism as a means of integration of immigrants.

Any one of those approaches would massively benefit your immigration problems. Applying all three would pretty well solve them.

Consider the above A WORTHWHILE CANADIAN INITIATIVE.

Boring? Oh yeah! But, I'm kinda thinkin' you American type folk could use a little boredom, Canadian-style.

And not just in immigration, how about your banking system?

GO BOREDOM. CHOOSE BOREDOM.

That is all.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 24, 2009 9:28 AM

I often like Canada's boringness. Boringness is underrated.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 24, 2009 9:34 AM

Chris White - right on cue, you do exactly what I'd said you'd do - avoid the hard task of defending what your forefathers have bequeathed you, in favor of easy and pleasant moralizing self-indulgence. (Btw, that "I believe in free speech but offending my religious beliefs is not free speech" isn't a "hypothetical". If you've never heard it or seen it in print you lead a very sheltered life.):

Moira can make the presumption that "... the smart money would be on you sidetracking everything into a discussion of the Sins of the White Man and the Evils of Colonialism" why can't I make the presumption that in her hypothetical the "some person or other" accused of insulting Islam actually WAS insulting Islam in a particularly nasty way? That is the point after all, isn't it?

No, it is not. It is precisely not the point. What the hell is wrong with you?

If our "some person or other" was truly innocent of insulting Islam it would be far easier for me or anyone else to stand up and defend the ideal of free speech, but less meaningful. The difficult part of supporting free speech is accepting and defending the right of someone to express views we consider abhorrent and hateful, but which are not criminally threatening.

Sweet zombie Jesus, man, will you listen to yourself? Engaging in the "difficult part of supporting free speech" is exactly what you're refusing to do here. Since when are Piss-Christ or the Mohammed cartoons "criminally threatening"?

You claim to deplore what has come to pass in Canada, but how do you think Canada and Britain (and sundry other Western nations) got that way? By ceding law and principle to multicultural "sensitivity". Yeah, you're gonna go all Voltaire on 'em, aren't you, Chris, any minute now. Right after you help 'em pass some new blasphemy laws.

But I did learn some new things from you, by inference from your replies to my comments:

1) Quakers, Puritans, and members of the four strains of British culture described by Fisher were not derived from Christian Europe.

2) Jews were not part of European culture, and there were even "Turkes and Egiptians" in large numbers in 17th-century New York testing the limits of the culture of tolerance, what with their polygamy and the muezzin's call competing with the church bells.

Learn something new every day. Chris, do you understand at all JV's point about numbers and assimilation?

My view of multiculturalism has nothing to do with Ward Churchill or La Raza et al...

Irrelevant. Unless I've missed that Chris White, Inc., is a large, politically influential, heavily corporate- and taxpayer-funded pressure group like La Raza.

I live in the real world and on the ground I see the ladies in their chadors going shopping and their little boys learning to skateboard.

Who doesn't, Chris? Why do you cling to this bizarre, false notion that the people here who disagree with you do so because we are (well, of course, goes without saying) racist bigots, and/or that we are all passportless denizens of Pleasantville? I have seen no evidence in these threads that you are better-traveled, better-read, have more languages, have deeper, wider experience of foreign cultures, or a more "multicultural" intra-national experience, than your interlocutors. In fact, seeing that you had to resort to a second-hand "experience" (your dad's travels) as your culture-club credential, I suspect you may have rather less. Naught wrong with that, but it does make you an ass for loftily assuming the cloak of International Man of Mystery addressing the rest of us as if we've never strayed farther from our Ozark hollers than a jaunt to the Walmart in the next town over.

You will have cleared a massive intellectual hurdle if you can correct this false premise, and break out of the endless, worthless, circular reasoning on this subject in which you're trapped. If you can't, I'll have to conclude that you are either pathologically self-absorbed, or just really, really, thick. And those two options are selected only from among the most charitable possible explanations.

Oh, almost forgot:

Oh, and do you include the socio-political attributes of Iroquois Confederacy as part of your understanding of the inherited legal and philosophical foundations for our system?

No, I don't, because it had little, if any, influence on those foundations. (And that's no diss to American Indians, either.) Add a little more rigor and critical discernment to your history reading, Chris. Good for what ails moonbats and wingnuts alike.

Posted by: Moira Breen on March 24, 2009 11:15 AM

Chris White--

Given that English is the dominant language in the world today for cross-cultural communication, for business, etc. I don't fear that it will disappear.

I don't think subjects other than foreign languages (which I agree should be taught) should be taught in a language other than English in our public schools at all period, full stop.

Language immersion works and fast. It particularly does for the young. There's voluminous evidence for this, and that teaching for many years in Spanish greatly retards the learning of English.

I want ONE language in the US being the one in common use in business, education, etc. For social cohesion purposes and ease of groups communicating with each other.

I don't want to compromise on this at all.

However I agree that a bilingual teacher principally teaching in English, but offering translations, is a good thing.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 11:15 AM

Canada also has the benefit of a 2000 mile thick buffer. You're welcome.

Posted by: JV on March 24, 2009 11:37 AM

But everything you say about Canada's policies sounds good to me, Patrick. Measured, intelligent immigration policy. I think the most profound and sensible thing the US could do is remove the "citizen at birth" clause. It makes more sense for all involved if babies born in the US are legally the same status as their parents. It would eliminate the "anchor baby" phenomenon.

I also think measures such as that should be spun as helpful to countries like Mexico. As I stated before, it is bad for Mexico and other Latin American countries in the long run to have generation after generation of men leaving their families and country to go work in the US, decimating the adult male population, leaving young boys with no responsible make role models, and giving little incentive for Latin American governments to improve their own economies.

Posted by: JV on March 24, 2009 11:42 AM

And one more thing! :)

The US is culpable in all of this, of course. And by the US, I mean of course Governmental Corporation Complex™ that passes for our elected officials and business leaders. The current immigration policies (and a good percentage of policies in other areas, for that matter) benefit only them, as Michael as pointed out. I really believe that the two sides represented by Chris and me on one and everyone else here on the other are really on the same side on this issue, for the most part; and if the Left were smart, that is how they would begin spinning the idea of immigration reform. Current policies are bad for the working class, bad for immigrants, bad for departure countries, and bad for the US. Want to get rid of awful working conditions for illegal immigrants? Start cracking down on the businesses that hire them. Want to Want to reduce drug crime? Legalize the weed already. Oh wait, that's a bit of a tangent. :)

Posted by: JV on March 24, 2009 12:02 PM

PatrickH: Let's hear it for Canadian boring-osity. I like it. It's a precious feature of the mosaic of nations, and must be preserved.

Your immigration system is certainly an improvement on ours, but I sure do encounter a lot of Canadians who aren't thrilled to the gills with that "multiculturalism as a means of integration" thing. You appear to have the same problem with digesting large numbers with, er, vibrant practices as we do. A points system is nice in theory, but I get the impression (as I get from Australia, which has a similar set-up) that it still leaves you with the problem of "too much, too fast", as it is as subject to the same manipulation and chicanery from the cheap-cheaper-cheapest labor, "infinite growth" sociopaths as our nuttier non-system. (I got a comforting feeling of cultural brotherhood coming across some Toronto real estate blogs once. Infinite growth! We need billions more immigrants right now! They're insane, just like home.) But if you've really put the kibosh on "family reunification" abuse, you're in much better shape than we can ever hope to be, because that ain't ever gonna happen here, alas.

It also appears that your large cities are undergoing the phenomenon of "white flight", too. Is that so?

Banking's good, though. Could you colonize our banking system? You'd have to show some multicultural sensitivity, though, and allow us to at least put the usurped banksters in stocks and throw rotten produce at them, unCanadian though that behavior would be.

But, as always, stay away from our guns.

Posted by: Moira Breen on March 24, 2009 12:11 PM

JV--

But everything you say about Canada's policies sounds good to me, Patrick. Measured, intelligent immigration policy. I think the most profound and sensible thing the US could do is remove the "citizen at birth" clause. It makes more sense for all involved if babies born in the US are legally the same status as their parents. It would eliminate the "anchor baby" phenomenon.

I agree with all of that JV, including the part about replacing our immigration selection system with Canada's. I've long thought that. We might seriously think about replacing or medical system with theirs as well, but that OT.

As well, since we're now in a period of high and sharply rising unemployment that's projected to continue to rise through the first part of next year at least, even if the economic decline slows down soon now and starts turning up in the last quarter of this year, why don't we start deporting illegals.

I don't care whether they have anchor babies or not. Something tells me the parents are gonna take their kids with them, in the overwhelming majority of cases. We could also just ship the kids with the parents. After all citizens or not, they aren't old enough to make their own decisions on big things, and the parents have custody. Oh and we should photograph and fingerprint everyone we deport and put that in a border crossing and employment and drivers license seeking database for rapid discovery if they sneak across again.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 12:29 PM

Not the definition of Multiculturalism that was requested upthread, but anecdotes that a definition should encompass.

1. Abdul Khadr returns home from Afghanistan to Canada (Mark Steyn, 2006) --

...One of Mr. Khadr's sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004...

In the course of the fatal shootout of al-Kanadi, his youngest son [Abdul] was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn't fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government health care. "I'm Canadian, and I'm not begging for my rights," declared the widow Khadr. "I'm demanding my rights."

...[The] prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr's claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to "diversity." Asked about the Khadrs' return to Toronto, he said, "I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree."

2. Sunday at Hansen Dam Recreation Center (Steve Sailer, 2007) --

...at the big Hansen Dam Recreation Center in the northeast San Fernando Valley [on a normal] Sunday afternoon, a couple of thousand people were assembled... The crowd was virtually 100% Latino... Although we are constantly lectured about the wonders of "diversity," the plain fact is that Mexicans seem to prefer ethnic homogeneity and monoculturalism.

[snip]

The idea that Mexican immigrants will gladly give up Mexican culture wouldn't make much sense to the people in Hansen Dam Park. They were having a lot more fun than gringos would have. About a dozen small bands were blaring mariachi music, creating a festive (if clashing) sound track. Horseback riders wove in and out. Vendors sold South-of-the-Border specialties such as watermelon chunks covered with hot sauce.

Of course, the reason for much of the fun at Hansen Dam was that the LAPD has apparently given up trying, under sheer weight of numbers, to enforce any of those maricon American laws.

Examples of flagrantly violated "health, safety, and environment rules that are the pride of American liberalism" follow.

Posted by: AMac on March 24, 2009 12:45 PM

As is all too often the case in these discussions the tendency is to act as if there are two polar opposites, not a vast three-dimensional complexity. If someone like myself fails to share SOME of the views others express the presumption becomes they/I hold diametrically opposite views. This is simplistic and wrong.

As noted so frequently it is becoming tedious, I favor tighter immigration. The Canadian model makes a lot of sense to me. JV's suggestion that children born of non-citizens no longer be automatically granted citizenship is similarly worth exploring. This might benefit from a few sub-clauses to avoid a teenager born here suddenly finding themselves deported to the country of their parent's origin, even if they've never been there and don't speak the language, but the basic principle of severely limiting the "anchor baby" policy is one I support.

I favor ESL immersion for recent arrivals and foreign language immersion for K-6 grades. While in certain areas of the country there may be practical reasons for bilingual teachers able to assist students to not only learn English but also still cover other subjects, I am not in favor of bilingual education per se.

Moira, I do wish you could control your propensity for making so many presumptions and actually read what I write. Example ... "Piss Christ" and the notorious cartoons are not "criminally threatening" and nothing in my comment indicates that I think they are. You set up a hypothetical in which you presume I would side with the insulted Muslim and fail to defend free speech. I don't accept the charge. "You f**king towelheads should all go back to where you came from!" Hey, the guy has every (free speech) right to express his opinion. "You f**king towelheads are going to be dead if you walk down OUR street again." Now, that might cross the line into criminal threatening. Even free speech absolutists draw the line at shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater or threatening to kill someone.

As a strong free speech advocate I find blasphemy laws border on the blasphemous and have commented more than once that "hate speech" laws are more dangerous to all of our freedoms than any "hate speech" they might prevent. I do not support them and have said so repeatedly.

You take me to task for responding to specific points and questions aimed at me by others. What's with that? I'm told to explain my views on multiculturalism by defending La Raza. When I don't take the bait, you skewer my response as irrelevant. If I'd ignored it you might well have skewered me for not responding.

I have good reason to assume that most of those posting here are better-traveled, better-read, have more languages, have deeper, wider experience of foreign cultures, or a more "multicultural" intra-national experience than I am. Does that mean I must meekly give up my own views or deny my own experiences? Does that mean when someone makes blanket statements condemning whole groups I should not call it as I see it?

My life has been spent in New England. I am an avid supporter of buying local. The best way to support and defend one's community and culture is to live it.

And finally, if the Founding Fathers simply recreated the British system from whence they came wouldn't we have a Parliament and constitutional monarchy? Given that the French Revolution was essentially concurrent with our own, and that the Iroquois Confederacy was studied and admired by many of the FF, and a host of other reasons I'll stick with my moonbat, wingut, idea that they did not simply transplant their inherited legal and philosophic foundations from one locale to another but did indeed craft something new when they wrote our founding documents.

JV March 24, 2009 12:02 PM – YES!

Posted by: Chris White on March 24, 2009 2:22 PM

Moira: I sure do encounter a lot of Canadians who aren't thrilled to the gills with that "multiculturalism as a means of integration" thing.

This is a recent change (just happened late last year), so there's going to be a lot of inertial bulge-in-python digesting going on. It's partly a subjective sense I have that the tide has turned on this issue, and Canada has woken up to the fact that "multiculturalism" only has meaning in a specific monocultural context: the Anglosphere, to put it a tad simplistically. That's the integration target now (leaving aside the anomaly of Quebec...they have their own near-xenophobic cultural protection policies in place. But that's another story.)

It also appears that your large cities are undergoing the phenomenon of "white flight", too.

I don't know. I do know Toronto is now mostly immigrant (and I mean immigrant, not just minority. I think more than half the city is foreign-born.) My own guess is that Canada's moving into a digestion/assimilation phase, when it comes to immigrants, and we've still got a strong enough stomach to do it.

I love Mark Steyn, but I think he's badly underestimated the resilience of Anglosphere cultural norms. Anglos will take a lot of abuse...like Tolkein's Ents, we're slow to anger. But like the Ents, when we get angry, we get good and angry. The restriction (not kibosh completely, but a pretty solid reining-in) of family reunification was met with a few token bleats of protest from the usual suspects...and then silence.

Silence is how Canadians applaud. Deafening silence is how we give standing ovations. Family reunification restriction was greeted with pretty well across the board deafening silence.

We know when our culture is really being threatened. And. that. is. something. we. do. not. permit. Like the Ents, we have "awoken and found that [we] are strong." We'll be able to assimilate almost every immigrant into this country, except the ones who've managed to collapse into the welfare system (e.g. Somalis) and who are therefore insulated from assimilationist pressures.

P.S. If we try to take your guns, you can always just shoot us. It's not like we'll be able to fire back. Despite the fact that our boys are fighting well in Afghanistan--par for the course for a military that's never lost a war or fought on the wrong side in one--it's still a source of some shame to me that a moderately well-armed American suburb could invade Canada and take over here in about, oh, a week.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 24, 2009 3:46 PM

JV, thanks for the buffer! Helps keep those Hispanics at bay! Too bad about your own wide-open southern side. Hope you can close that up soon. :-)

I do think your response that some of the policies put into place in Canada would help the US too is a good one, if those policies are described as (and really are!) taking on the corporate lobbyists for mass immigration of cheap labour. This is something the left should be able to get behind, unless the left's connection with the working class and mainstream America is now so swipple-ized that the prospect of concerning themselves with the welfare of the working class is too distasteful for the left to bear.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 24, 2009 3:53 PM

Patrick - That sounds very heartening. I wasn't aware of those recent developments. (I mean...it's Canada...I get around to the news from the north after I've caught up with Tannu Tuva and Tajikistan and stuff...) That old borg-like Anglo impassivity (which is not passivity, but let you're enemies think it is) will suck 'em in in the end, no? Hell, if you can turn an Irishman into an Anglo, I guess you can probably assimilate freakin' anything. I sometimes fear we Americans let our bluster spill over into the space that ought to be reserved for that calm relentlessness. Maybe we can reclaim some room for that in the part of the national consciousness now reserved for snickering at Canucks.

Quebeckers, Quebeckers, gotta love 'em. Sons of bitches, but your sons of bitches, eh?

Don't worry, we wouldn't ever shoot you. Not our suburbanites, certainly never our military. (Notwithstanding that distant contretemps, really, promise, it won't ever happen again.) You are justly proud of your distinguished military history. I get angry at hearing your men dissed or mistreated in any way (and I am a typical American who will enthusiastically participate in and enjoy any other possible dissing and joking at the expense of you hosers, otherwise).

Posted by: Moira Breen on March 24, 2009 6:15 PM

Amac who cares about a festival as long as you can go too. I attend Greek,Italina,African(not American) festivals and I never feel out of place. In fact I look forward to Italian festivals because I love the food.

JVI live in California and love the incredibly diverse population here, the languages, the food, the music, all of it. But, I draw the line at fundamentally changing the country to accommodate immigrants. Mostly I'm referring to language. I think everyone should be bilingual, languages should be taught much earlier in our schools, but English should remain the official language, and the goal of every immigrant should be to learn it to fluency.
Agreed
It just bothers me how some people seem to forget that one does not learn a language overnight. It takes two with complete immersion at the very least to learn a new language. We have many older immigrants coming into this contry who will struggle with learning a new language moreso than younger immigrants. A large percentage of the oldest immagrants may never learn to speak Standard English beyond a few helpful phrases and fractured sentences.
JVI hold no ill feelings nor feelings of superiority towards Hispanics or any other immigrant population. My anger is towards the immigration policy as it stands.
*high fives JV*
We are eye to eye buddy. I don’t have any venom towards immigrants who come here to work hard and take care of their families. It’s the business owners and Congress people who take kick backs that I have a problem with.

Posted by: chic noir on March 24, 2009 6:30 PM

Chris White

"You f**king towelheads should all go back to where you came from!" Hey, the guy has every (free speech) right to express his opinion.

Yes, you can still say that here. But you can't in Britain or in much of the rest of the EU. It's a criminal offense.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 7:31 PM

PatrickH

This is something the left should be able to get behind

You'd think. Except the Jewish left, which leads the left, won't. And that happens to be crucial in these United States.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 7:33 PM

PatrickH

Despite the fact that our boys are fighting well in Afghanistan--par for the course for a military that's never lost a war or fought on the wrong side in one--it's still a source of some shame to me that a moderately well-armed American suburb could invade Canada and take over here in about, oh, a week.

LoL!

I'm not sure quite when it became anathema to Americans to have designs on Canada (sure didn't used to be that way through the first half of the 19th century -- "52' 40" or fight" -- but it has been for some long time now. Since WW I perhaps?

Actually I imagine before that WWI anathema, almost all Americans lost interest in Canadian territory by the gilded age following our Civil War. Too much money being made elsewhere, and we were soon casting our eyes over overseas quasi empires that more or less fell into our laps (Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba sort of, etc.) Oh and we got diverted by stealing land from Mexico before that. Like Texas through California.

Besides you had the British Navy backing you up, and before WWII and the American hyper naval build up, that was big.

Being on the same side in the two biggest wars in either of our histories (save the US Civil War) does have an effect.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 7:46 PM

Chris White --

Judging from all parts of your latest response, you aren't a multiculturalist. You might believe that you are, but they'll only tolerate you as a "Useful Idiot." If that. Try for yourself: contribute those same opinions to the comments of a well-trafficked Hard-Left politics blog and see how they are received.

chic noir --

> Amac who cares about a festival as long as you can go too.

Somehow I don't think you clicked on the link. Here it is again, if you're interested. Skip to the final few paragraphs, where Sailer quotes Seth Shteir of the Audobon Society. I wouldn't be surprised if Sailer and Shteir love Greek and Italian food, too.

Posted by: AMac on March 24, 2009 9:58 PM

Chic Noir,

You don't have anything against immigrants who come here to work and take care of their family.

By immigrants, do you care if they are legal or illegal?

Do you care if they lower wages for U.S. citizens? Do you care if they are H1-B visa workers specifically brought here to lower labor costs in this country - therby both benefiting them and the corporations?

Are you against family reunification policies? Where by we get grandma and grandpa in the peak of their needing medical care? Keep in mind the cost of any senior dying in an American hospital when you answer that, please.

If by the immigrants and their offsprings' presence, say a white person can no longer safely go into the neighborhoods where the immigrants live, would that change your opinion in any way?

If their allegiance remains first and foremost to, say, Latinos, rather than the United States would that change your mind in any way?

Just curious.

sN

Posted by: sN on March 25, 2009 1:01 AM

dougjinn:

Fell into your laps?
Dude, trust me, the Philippines and Hawaii hardly "fell into America's lap".
Liliuokalani and Aguinaldo would beg to differ.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on March 25, 2009 9:46 AM

Sn By immigrants, do you care if they are legal or illegal? legal immigrants are preferred of course but I have empathy for illegal immigrants who come to support their families. Does that mean that I think they should get citizenship/ammesty simply because they came to America? No.

Do you care if they lower wages for U.S. citizens? Of course I do. I mentioned this at length on this blog a week or so ago and about four weeks ago on Rose's blog. It’s the reason business owners love illegal immigrants.

Do you care if they are H1-B visa workers specifically brought here to lower labor costs in this country - therby both benefiting them and the corporations? Sn, did you read my response? I said that corporations benefit from illegal immigration big time and it’s not some conspiracy by the SWPL crowd. It’s about money, the same reason my ancestors were brought here. Most of the SWPL crowd don’t have a boat load of money anyway. They are paying off 50k + in student loans for that Phd in Music studes etc.

Hl-B visa workers numbers should be curtailed and scholarships and grants should be increased in the fields for those areas of which we import foreign worker in higher numbers. One reason so few Americans major in harder subjects is because they lack the time and dedication it would take to study those subjects and do well because they must work. Most of my friends who attend college work fulltime. Not many people can’t work full-time and maintain a 3.5+ gpa in electrical engineering. BTW, IBM is eliminating more American jobs and out sourcing them over to India.

Posted by: chic noir on March 25, 2009 4:25 PM

Two more things, jobs in healthcare are being outsourced or “insourced”(?) as well. Many hospitals have Pilipino RNs because they are cheaper to employee. The Wall St Journal had an article about many law firms outsourcing to India.

Are you against family reunification policies? yes and no Where by we get grandma and grandpa in the peak of their needing medical care? Yes this is a money drainer here. A partial solution may be that we make families purchase insurance for their elderly relatives instead to avoid their fleecing of Medicare. We should also decrease the number of people we give permanent residence. Three to five year temporary work visas would be better. This way we can possibly avoid having workers put down roots like the illegals who brought homes(a big no no). Keep in mind the cost of any senior dying in an American hospital when you answer that, please. Yes I know, very expensive and I kept that in mind.

If by the immigrants and their offsprings' presence, say a white person can no longer safely go into the neighborhoods where the immigrants live, would that change your opinion in any way?
Well Latinos usually move into poor black neighborhoods when they first arrive since that is all they can afford. For the most part, they are peaceful people here on the East coast. The more violent immigrant groups are usually those who are coming from war torn countries in which people have witnesses human atrocities since birth. Therefore, we must be careful which groups we allow to move here.

What immigrant neighborhoods do you no longer feel safe in?
Are you just freighted to see people who don’t look like you?

If their allegiance remains first and foremost to, say, Latinos, rather than the United States would that change your mind in any way? You gotta understand that the culture of this country is to divide people up along skin color lines not ethnic or religious lines.

Beyond being a colony of Spain and all that it entails how much do you think a person from Mexico has in common with a person from Dominican Republic, and Peru? It’s only when they come to this country that they find out they are alike. As a white American how much do you have in common with White French person or White German? Get what I’m saying? They learn to be Latino when they move to American.

Just curious. We all are my friend. I’m full of questions :)

sN

Posted by: chic noir on March 25, 2009 4:27 PM

@Amac, I checked out the article and while I agree with Steve about when it comes to removing his family from a possibly dangerous situation eg fistfighting and illegal horse riding, he was doing a lot of reaching in that article.
It reads like something from the mouth of Lou Dobbs.
The crowd was virtually 100% Latino. Before I arrived with my family Sooooo as long as your safety wasn’t in question, what’s the big deal. Remember I’ve traveled a little so I’ve been in places where I was the only Black or Black American or American. Guess what, I felt fine. Maybe because I don’t the have some sort of paranoia that the world is after me. Most people go about their day worrying about their problems not giving a damn about you as an indivual.

Mexicans bring with them a macho culture
This can be found in both Italian, Greek and to a lesser extent French culture. The origin of Macho culture is Latin. FYI “Game” adopts a bit of macho culture wouldn’t you say?

About 50 feet from where we were sitting, two young men started punching each other as hard as their state of inebriation would allow. Go anywhere that you can find young men and free flowing alcohol and you will find this. When people drink, they lose all of the inhibitions. You see women urinating in the streets, going home with men they don’t know, men laying about with women they don’t find attractive, telling your boss how you really feel at the xmas party. Remember this^^^ way part of the reason why alcohol was banned for a short period in American Histroy.
Don’t forget that Native Americans don’t have a tolerance for alcohol.
Riding is dangerous, as the sad examples of Christopher Reeve and Cole Porter attest.
It is but so is driving a car. More people die of car accidents each year than form falling off of horses.
BTW, I don’t agree with people having horses out illegally where someone can get hurt.

American-style parks aren't designed for Mexican tastes. Ours tend to have too many open lawns and not enough trees. Mexicans discriminate against folks, which means nobody wants to tan. So everybody at Hansen Dam crowded together in the shade of the bordering trees, even though the temperature was only in the 80s

My dear friend is doing a lot of reaching here. Yes there is discrimination in Mexico and among Mexico but fear of tanning may not be the reason people where sitting under trees. Sitting under the trees is cooler.
Granted, it's not very effective at producing the kinds of things that, say, Ben Franklin most valued—such as scientific progress; technological inventiveness; a love of the printed word; civic cooperativeness; and an optimal mix of liberty, order, and equality
Yup he has a point there. Those Vikings sure are something. Just look at their descendants in Sweden. That country is all types of hell.

Posted by: chic noir on March 25, 2009 5:08 PM

Too much money being made elsewhere, and we were soon casting our eyes over overseas quasi empires that more or less fell into our laps Hawaii

NO certainly not Hawaii. Read about what we did to the queen.

Posted by: chic noir on March 25, 2009 5:24 PM

chic, I think your analogy between white Americans and Europeans would be more apt if you took language into account. White Americans and white Brits in Italy soon learn how much they have in common.

Posted by: hello on March 25, 2009 7:08 PM

Chic Noir,
So, you have empathy for the illegals, but dont necessarily want to give them amnesty. There is a law against them. If we still have a democratic process here -- one that is not subject to veto by yours or others' empathy -- then the illegals should be sent home. And the rest of the popultion should be asked to decide how many people are going to come to this country. How come those sympathetic to immigrants don't push that idea? Let us voet on how many should be welcomed in. Or are we not qualified to do that as citizens? Perhaps, you have given up on the democratic system?

You do care that they lower wages, but you won't prevent them from lowering wages -- is that the case or do you have some magic formula for handling that? Keep in mind that there will always be more entering the country, espeically if they sense a welcoming or even apathetic acceptance on our part.

As for the expenses of the elderly, you would want their families to buy insurance for the old folks. Have you ever been in a car accident with an illegal? Suddenly, not only do they not speak English, but they revert back to caveman days and grunt while shrugging their shoulders until the insured driver gives up. Yes, they will buy insurance for mom and pop and grandma. The immigrants are going to buy insurance for people in their 60s or older? This just seems flat out crazy. Think of the costs that go into the elderly at U.S. hospitals. Now, you get the immigrants to pay the premium that would be required and while you're at it, could you get some car insurance for them. The truth is the system you have here can't support them. It can't. So you tell me how much extra you are willing to pay to support them in taxes.

Of course, for the most part immigrants are peaceful people. The problem is that it does not take many nonpeaceful people do screw an entire neighborhood. Watch a few of those stupid National Geographic prison shows -- you'll see Calif. prisons full of Mexicans. True, most of them are in there for driving without insurance, but the rest still make up a sizable population.

Here in Calif, Ive seen them turn nice neighborhood after neighborhood into gang-bang land. Do I fear them becaue they are different. NO! I hate them because they want to shoot what is different from them. I hate their shitty little attitude of shooting one or two partygoers week after week in my city and there are rarely any witnesses. I hate the attitude of not snitching. I don't think a community like that deserves to be or can be in a free republic, at least not one that intends to be around for a while. I hate that there are packs of armed kids controlling block after block of my state. They are known to the authorities. They even appear on TV bragging about their gang affiliations. Yet, nothing is done This is an atrocity beyond belief. Armed kids that are known controlling many blocks of our major cities. Talk about an act of war. Today's immigration feeds this insanity.

As for them learning to be Latino. That is somewhat true. But that comes from the power brokers in their own "community." The power brokers want the raza to raise their boats --take a look at Calif's politics. Race hustlers need races. But then again what should they be loyal to in America? What is America these days but an ATM machine that is suppose to spit out money while at the same time spitting out apologies for its past. But that leads us back to multiculturalism....

sN

Posted by: sN on March 25, 2009 7:12 PM

Sn And the rest of the population should be asked to decide how many people are going to come to this country.
This is an excellent idea.
How come those sympathetic to immigrants don't push that idea? Because they know most Americans will vote for them to go home. Esp with the downturn in the economy.
Or are we not qualified to do that as citizens? Oh we are Perhaps, you have given up on the democratic system? Not yet
Keep in mind that there will always be more entering the country, espeically if they sense a welcoming or even apathetic acceptance on our part Yes that’s why business owner who employee them should face huge fines for doing so.
The immigrants are going to buy insurance for people in their 60s or older? This just seems flat out crazy. Think of the costs that go into the elderly at U.S. hospitals I was thinking of the H1-B visas folks not those who work for minimum wage.

Here in Calif, Ive seen them turn nice neighborhood after neighborhood into gang-bang land. Do I fear them becaue they are different. NO! I hate them because they want to shoot what is different from them. I hate their shitty little attitude of shooting one or two partygoers week after week in my city and there are rarely any witnesses. I hate the attitude of not snitching.
What is America these days but an ATM machine that is suppose to spit out money while at the same time spitting out apologies for its past. The random shooting etc are the reason the major reason most of haves move from the city as soon as they are able too.
Race hustlers need races.
True.
What is America these days but an ATM machine that is suppose to spit out money while at the same time spitting out apologies for its past. Actually, Spain & Portugal owe apologies to South and Central America.

Posted by: chic noir on March 25, 2009 8:58 PM

hello said chic, I think your analogy between white Americans and Europeans would be more apt if you took language into account. White Americans and white Brits in Italy soon learn how much they have in common./i>
Point noted Hello.

Is this from personal experience?

Posted by: chic noir on March 25, 2009 9:25 PM

chic noir, thanks for reading & commenting on that piece.

Posted by: AMac on March 25, 2009 10:04 PM

I lived in England for six months and felt that the differences between Brits and Americans were vast. But during that same time when I was blundering around Italy it was usually friendly Brits who explained certain Italianisms to me why the post office was closed at 3 o'clock on a Tuesday, and I saw that we were much more similar to each other than we were to the Italians. Not that I wouldn't mind a few adding a few Italian qualities to general American culture.

Posted by: hello on March 25, 2009 10:19 PM

Gotcha Hello

Did you have a problem with British slang and/or the different British accents?
flat =apartment
elevator =lift
cookie =biscuit
jumper =sweater

Posted by: chic noir on March 25, 2009 10:59 PM

Fun to see Chic and hello stopping by. Party time!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 25, 2009 11:32 PM

Chic,
I'd read "Bridget Jones' Diary" when the movie came out and researched all the slang in that book so I had no trouble with the words you mentioned. I was surprised was at how liberally Brits used the word "cunt", which to us is an extreme vulgarity.

But hilariously the word "fanny", which to Americans (I don't know about Canadians, clio, patrick?) is a rather childish and very tame word for the backside, to Brits is like the word "cunt" to us, taboo and extremely offensive. One of my English girlfriends told a story of how her American flatmate once waltzed into their living room and showed off her new "fanny pack", to the amusement of several blokes sitting there. My friend nearly dropped dead to hear a girl would say such a thing at all, much less in the presence of guys. Brits apparently call it a bum bag.

Posted by: hello on March 26, 2009 12:24 AM

Fanny's fine up here, hello. That is hilarious about the Brits being offended by the word though. What about stories, movies that have characters named Fanny? Admittedly the Brit stories with Fannies in them strike my failing memory as having been bawdy, even pornographic, so Fanny there might have been a nudge-nudge wink-wink sort of thing. Kinda like "If You Seek Amy" in pop music.

Mind you "bum bag" might cause a room or two to fall silent on this side of the pond. And it's barely possible to use the c-word here...to refer to a guy. No dicey on using it for the ladies, though. The Brits seem to use it for guys too. You ever listen to those hilarious Dudley Moore/Peter Cook drunken rambles (not the first ones, the second pair they did). There's one where a drunken Dud tells an equally snackered Cook about this "fackin' cahnt called moy a cahnt! That fackin' cahnt!"

Sister Wolf? You here? She sent me links to two of the Dudster's and Cook's skits on YouTube...they're a scream. Maybe she'll oblige you too, hello.

P.S. Sister is unusual in many ways...one of them being that she positively revels in being called a c*nt. She has a poster up on her site of an old bespectacled guy pointing his finger and saying YOU MUST STOP BEING SUCH A C*NT.

She makes a point to keep on being just that.

P.P.S. I continue to worship Sister Wolf.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 26, 2009 9:48 AM

PatrickH

Oh I would and have used the word cunt to refer to a woman. In mixed company. In certain circumstances. But only when intended as a bit or alot of a bombshell. Roughly those in which I would use words like shithead.

Of course I'd expect an attempted feminist mugging, so using it in a group where women outnumbered me 10 to 1 would make for some unpleasantness. Unless I'd managed to make myself a star and some woman did something even all her sisters would regard as unambiguously nasty/aggressively obnoxious. Then I'd expect silence after my taboo breaking, followed by nervous light laughs. Followed by maybe one woman's mild challenge. Followed by my asking her if she ever called a man a prick. Followed by her saying it's different for some inance reason, or maybe that would shut her up. If not followed by you mean it's different because the pussy should be regarded as sacrosanct, unlike the cock?

But that's a lot of work, so it would take special circumstances.

btw, I used to defend myself vigorously if I was ever called a sexist, or a chauvanist, as I'm sure all or almost all of you do now. Well probably not Shouting Thomas, for which kudos. Now if called that I think I'll say "thank you". If challenged on that I'll say "I do think there are important sex differences and I'm happy to be a man. And happy there are so many women. Vive la difference."

Posted by: dougjnn on March 26, 2009 7:26 PM

So, does this bozo mean my Pinoy husband, a WWII vet, is not an American? (shhhsh. he's even a Republican!)

The quip about "white" implies the one drop rule, i.e. one drop of non white blood and you are "the other".

But Americans have been intermarrying since Pocahontas married John Rolf.

as for "multiculturalism", that translates as "let's destroy the idea of right and wrong". But a closer look would show that a Chinese Confusian, a Filipino Catholic, Indo Muslim or Colombian Evangelical, or an African Anglican would pretty well agree on most moral issues: hard work, honesty, fidelity to one's mate, and dedication to one's family.

Those are all "American" vitues last time I checked.

Posted by: tioedong on March 26, 2009 8:26 PM

> Followed by her saying it's different for some inance reason, or maybe that would shut her up. If not followed by you mean it's different because the pussy should be regarded as sacrosanct, unlike the cock?

I won't say I would absolutely never say that in mixed company, but I would certainly hesitate to - I'd probably rather just go with "bitch." Of course it's different - because women are somewhat less rough-hewn than men. That's why many men used to never say damn, hell, or shit in mixed company, why it is less seemly on average for women to spit on the ground, swear, and/or swear a lot (though swearing goes with some female personalities and some subcultures better than others), etc.

Posted by: blue anonymous on March 27, 2009 2:53 AM

blue anonymous--

Of course it's different - because women are somewhat less rough-hewn than men. That's why many men used to never say damn, hell, or shit in mixed company, why it is less seemly on average for women to spit on the ground, swear, and/or swear a lot (though swearing goes with some female personalities and some subcultures better than others), etc.

Oh I'd never say it to a feminine, old school, or girly woman. I would say it under some circumstances to a feminist, i.e. most women these days. That is I'd never say it to those first sorts outside of an intimate dirty sexy talk context.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 27, 2009 8:04 PM

i.e. they say they're just as tough and capable of being just as crude as men, so why give them when they're pissing you off and you're not intimate with them, special sugar and spice taboos treatment?

Posted by: dougjnn on March 27, 2009 8:05 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?