Folks, this is about a year and a half old, but it is right on the mark.
Unfortunately we created an entire generation of poorly educated millennials who support diversity, multiculturalism, open borders, and New World Order believing this will give them free stuff…but the only people receiving free stuff are Muslims and Hispanics, this is population replacement.
Multiculturalism absolutely can not work, one culture will always reign supreme. Multiculturalism doesn’t work amongst people that can’t adapt to different stimuli. This known fact.
I believe that people were sold a big lie about how we’d progress to a supposedly egalitarian, equal, society.
Y’know, that all we’d need to do is just bring down the legal barriers and borders and then everything would be magically solved, and everybody would be magically happy.
I do think it’s a fault of contemporary liberalism that the idea of this kind of egalitarian, multicultural progression was painted as something ‘simple’ or ‘easy’.
I’ve resigned myself to the possibility that it might take more than my lifetime before we’ve really confronted the profound social, economic and psychological consequences of the fact that in all major societies, for the majority of civilized human history, inequality amongst different cultures was the norm and not the exception.
As much as we try to exacerbate difference between societies; I will say, we’re not hardly that different at all. We share a highly interconnected history, functionally identical physiologies and brain structures, and have evolved, both on a physical and social level, in response to pretty comparable environmental conditions.
In Ancient China, for example, they (allegedly) had no way of linguistically differentating action and being.
It’s a supposedly fundamental distinction in Indo-European languages, but apparently not exclusive to historical lineages of Sino-Tibetan languages.
But even then, in spite of these differences which seem perceptively significant, I still question how truly ‘alien’ things of this nature render somebody different from another. If it were the case that it did, I don’t think we would have a national American identity.
I see your point, but you are arguing that no matter who you are, we all think generally the same.
If we all think the same, then there’s no real problem in equality and cultural differences don’t exist.
But that premise of “we are all thinking in the same way” is not necessarily true. We do not all think the same.
If someone is not thinking in the same way as someone else, then it could be impossible for one person or the other to understand the same things in the same way.
I don’t think people think the same anywhere and even if they did it’s not like we all grow up in vacuums.
Also, I don’t believe it is really possible to separate emotions from thinking – or at least, it’s not very functional to do so. The fact that we think differently creates an American identity. The problem with multiculturalism is it doesn’t challenge those who come here to think differently. It challenges us to.
The ‘meltingpot’ of the United States is the result you are speaking of… It is the natural and very time consuming meshing of cultural ideals centered around a central framework of the rule of law anchored by a constitutional bedrock. Eventually, you will no doubt be correct. We, that is all countries and cultures of the world, will likely find differences to be small, but for now things like theocracy, secularism, communism, capitalism, the concept of liberty verses authoritarianism etc, rub up against each other in abrasive and sometimes very violent ways. To the progressive this as a minor bump on the road to ‘their’ version of homogeneity… It is unnatural, to fast, not necessarily the chosen mix of cultural values and will do nothing positive for the society that it is forced on… If progressive programs of the past are any indication of future success, we must be wary of their grand design.
Historically, multiculturalism has generally worked in the United States, look at the immigrants who come here and create tech companies that create wealth in the America, look at the culture brought by African Americans and their music: without it rock, metal, hip hop wouldn’t exist.
Most of these immigrants that create wealth assimilate into american society as well, or at least they have consistently.
It worked because we never really accepted a lack of assimilation. Sure, immigrants would congregate together in their own communities but when they left their bubble they were expected to behave as Americans do. The children of those immigrants were only spoken to in English and rarely the native tongue of their parents. We’ve all heard stories like this from our grandparents. Some people here have experienced this for themselves as the children of immigrants. There are even some here who were immigrants and are now naturalized citizens. These people all put in the effort to become a part of America and not recreate their home country in America. I think that’s the difference.
The problem today as @BigTom points out is assimilation. The migration of today is far different than that of centuries… even decades past. When someone chose to come to the US they arrive with no expectation that anyone much less the state would take care of them and secondly and more importantly they became isolated from their cultural roots and developed new ones in the US. Today many come because they think that even if they work hard and fail, someone will take care of them and communicating with ‘the old country’ that took weeks and sometimes months now is instantaneous… their is no cultural break or isolation and their is no serious pressure to assimilate… US schools now must cater to over 100 different languages and just as many cultural foibles…
There again is the ‘good’ side of the coin. The problem is that only those who, through hard work, smart work and sacrifice - succeed- embrace the mainstream culture. For every success story there are a hundred thousand middling to failure stories. Those people do not assimilate, and choose to live in insular communities that nurture their sense of victimhood.
In the past, that behavior was frowned upon, today it is embraced by the left as ‘authenticity’ and questioning of it is’racist’.
This is an editorial that appeared some years back in the LA Times, before it became 100% Pravda…
Multiculturalism’s War on Education
September 23, 2004 By: Elan Journo
Multiculturalism seeks to inject an anti-Western dogma into today’s curriculum.
Back to school nowadays means back to classrooms, lessons and textbooks permeated by multiculturalism and its championing of “diversity.” Many parents and teachers regard multiculturalism as an indispensable educational supplement, a salutary influence that “enriches” the curriculum. But is it?
With the world’s continents bridged by the Internet and global commerce, multiculturalism claims to offer a real value: a cosmopolitan, rather than provincial, understanding of the world beyond the student’s immediate surroundings. But it is a peculiar kind of “broadening.” Multiculturalists would rather have students admire the primitive patterns of Navajo blankets, say, than learn why Islam’s medieval golden age of scientific progress was replaced by fervent piety and centuries of stagnation.
Leaf through a school textbook and you’ll find that there is a definite pattern behind multiculturalism’s reshaping of the curriculum. What multiculturalists seek is not the goal they advertise, but something else entirely. Consider, for instance, the teaching of history.
One text acclaims the inhabitants of West Africa in pre-Columbian times for having prosperous economies and for establishing a university in Timbuktu; but it ignores their brutal trade in slaves and the proliferation of far more consequential institutions of learning in Paris, Oxford and elsewhere in Europe. Some books routinely lionize the architecture of the Aztecs, but purposely overlook or underplay the fact that they practiced human sacrifices. A few textbooks seek to portray Islam as peaceful in part by distorting the concept of “jihad” (“sacred war”) to mean an internal struggle to surmount temptation and evil. Islam’s wars of religious conquest are played down.
What these textbooks reveal is a concerted effort to portray the most backward, impoverished and murderous cultures as advanced, prosperous and life-enhancing. Multiculturalism’s goal is not to teach about other cultures, but to promote–by means of distortions and half-truths–the notion that non-Western cultures are as good as, if not better than, Western culture. Far from “broadening” the curriculum, what multiculturalism seeks is to diminish the value of Western culture in the minds of students. But, given all the facts, the objective superiority of Western culture is apparent, so multiculturalists artificially elevate other cultures and depreciate the West.
If students were to learn the truth of the hardscrabble life of primitive farming in, say, India, they would recognize that subsistence living is far inferior to life on any mechanized farm in Kansas, which demands so little manpower, yet yields so much. An informed, rational student would not swallow the “politically correct” conclusions he is fed by multiculturalism. If he were given the actual facts, he could recognize that where men are politically free as in the West, they can prosper economically; that science and technology are superior to superstition; that man’s life is far longer, happier and safer in the West today than in any other culture in history.
The ideals, achievements and history of Western culture in general–and of America in particular–are purposely given short-shrift by multiculturalism. That the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age were born and flourished in Western nations; that the preponderance of Nobel prizes in science have been awarded to people in the West–such facts, if they are noted, are passed over with little elaboration.
The “history” that students do learn is rewritten to fit multiculturalism’s agenda. Consider the birth of the United States. Some texts would have children believe the baseless claim that America’s Founders modeled the Constitution on a confederation of Indian tribes. This is part of a wider drive to portray the United States as a product of the “convergence” of three traditions–native Indian, African and European. But the American republic, with an elected government limited by individual rights, was born not of stone-age peoples, but primarily of the European Enlightenment. It is a product of the ideas of thinkers like John Locke, a British philosopher, and his intellectual heirs in colonial America, such as Thomas Jefferson.
It is a gross misconception to view multiculturalism as an effort to enrich education. By reshaping the curriculum, the purveyors of “diversity” in the classroom calculatedly seek to prevent students from grasping the objective value to human life of Western culture–a culture whose magnificent achievements have brought man from mud huts to moon landings.
Multiculturalism is no boon to education, but an agent of anti-Western ideology.
Elan Journo is an editor and writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA.
This country has always been a nation of immigrants .Alot were exploited by mine owners and the railroads .
Today some cultures have become pandered to by politicians and have become more important than others . Most of those of Hispanic origin believe they have an inherent right to taxpayers handouts and go to thehead of the line in front of everyone else .When you challenge them you are called.Racist not only by them but by the Liberal Loons .
…Everyone should be proud of their heritage .I am proud to be of German and Swiss heritage but I don’t flaunt it and don’t want taxpayers handouts or claim I’m being discriminated against . I have made my own way in this world .We owe the world the doesn’t owe us .
. . …Unfortunately where I live the city has become the landfill for New York’s Hispanic trash .
We need to start with realistic goals, imo. Freedom of association in the USA would give people the ability to create their communities. Forced integration has never worked.
We’ve had that for centuries, and it always worked- up until the rise of ‘ethnic pride’ and the insularity that it created. While being the newcomer has always been a bit more trying, ‘ethnic pride’ movements have been about rejecting assimilation, mainstream society, and for the most part- success.
I don’t think anyone is in favor of some sort of ‘forced integration’ (well, except for liberals and busing- but that’s another story). I think people here are bemoaning the human detritus that ‘ethnic pride’ ends up creating.
I disagree… We haven’t had freedom of association but for some 40 years between the civil war and today. Plessy v Ferguson upheld the concept of state directed segregation. While that concept in law existed only in the Jim Crow laws of the south, once the US supreme Court upheld ‘equal but separate’ entire towns in Illinois split in two and school districts in many states segregated. Many who supported the separate but equal provisions of the Supreme Court decision spoke about the positive protections for blacks and how the law served to protect them in the post Reconstruction south.
Of course the Supreme Court finally came to its senses in the Brown v Board of Ed case in 1954. That was the first time since 1896 that a citizen got to make the decision as to who and how they would relate to each other. It was also the time of greatest coming together of blacks and whites. Many white owned business were forced to run two business and could cut costs accordingly and may racist business owners had to make the decision whether they wanted the business or not… P.S… this was also true of black establishments where ‘black only’ establishments were common for night clubs and restaurants.
The freedom of association ended in 1964 where another well intentions set of laws were passed and a serious twist of constitutional logic was used to justify them. Title II and Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act was, in essence, the absolute antithesis of Pessy. Plessy used government to separate people it deemed should be apart and the 1964 civil rights act forced people to do business with each other regardless of their own personal desires. The Lester Maddox restaurant is a testament to that government force. No doubt Lester Maddox was a racist. He built his restaurant for his white friends and associates. It didn’t matter than he hired blacks to work their, because if he refuse to serve blacks, he was afoul of the law…
The problem here as with Separate But Equal is that the state gets to decide the moral compass of the country, not the citizens… Red lining laws prevents a person putting their home on the market with restrictions on who buys. Business must hire people who are otherwise not a good fit for the company ethos just because the state determines that they are qualified.
I could go on and on but the fact is, we haven’t had real freedom of association very much in this country and it is no different today than it was 100 years ago. We are seeing the back lash to these otherwise well intentioned laws… blacks who want to set up and run black only business… segregated accommodation at various venues… It took 60 years to see the stupidity of the Pessy decision and I guess we are starting to come full circle with regards to a couple of serious oversteps by government in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Its all well and good for government to be color, sex and religion blind… that is as it should be, but no where can you pull out of the constitution (without serious twists of logic) that government has the right to force the same obligations on citizens…
SCOTUS gets it right maybe half the time at best. I never like to tout a SCOTUS decision because they are so bad…how many decisions over the years can be seen as horrible in the rear view mirror of hindsight?
A good many I am afraid but it is the ego of the judiciary that wants to put its stamp on the direction of the country… being a stepchild of both the executive and the legislative, they just can’t help stepping outside their constitutional purview…
The founders feared it and spoke and wrote often of the danger of judges. Jefferson was especially distressed over the Marshall court.
If we want to help immigrants assimilate maybe we could start by putting all public signage in ENGLISH and not being so accommodating to those who won’t learn our language. The same goes for welfare paperwork.