Victor Davis Hanson on Multiculturalism

[Socio]

I think America is fine, and will be fine. We're big enough to absorb these immigrant communities even if some assimilate better than others.

I never understood the tolerance in the UK or France for these isolated immigrant communities. I mean you don't see millions of Frenchman living in enclaves in Vietnam, that sort of thing would not be tolerated. Vietnam is for the Vietnamese and their laws reflect that.

These countries, France, UK, others, have no historically been 'melting pots.' I don't know why they try to be, to their detriment.

In America it works because we have a fairly clear identity outlined in our Constitution. Ask me what it means to be an American and it's easy to say freedom of speech, press, free markets, bla bla bla.. ask a Frenchman what it means to be French and I imagine the answer is more abstract and hard to define

We have more than 50 million immigrants (legal and illegal) and their U.S.-born children (under 18) in the United States already, and it cost the country (tax paying citizenry) billions of dollars year just to allow them to exist here. We have some 25 million Americans out of work another 10 million or so that gave up and left the work force. This would suggest that the US is NOT big enough to absorb them not even big enough to absorb half of them!

That American identity is getting blurrier by the day with a political Left that thinks that Constitution is just a piece of paper and should be treated as such, a political Left that who's strength is growing exponentially in large part due to said mass immigration.

 

[Texashiker]

Good article ruined by all the fluff.

The author missed a few sentences where he could insert another blue ford f350 with dual purpose tires pulling a red lowboy trailer with tandem axles truckload of adjectives.

 

[Atreus21]

I can't speak for him but my point is more that I take issue with the idea that people go after their own culture out of the idea it is cool to do so while simultaneously letting slide the deficiencies of other cultures, other nations because of some desire to be multicultural. I'll admit some probably do but I think more often than not people will simply bitch about whatever culture they find themselves in because that is the one that has the big immediate impact on them. Like I mentioned with my Christianity anecdote, I don't spend most of my time debating religion on it because I think it is wronger or worse than other religions, I spend my time on it because I know it best living in it and it has the biggest impact on me, I expect culture in the broader sense is treated by most people the same way.

To me, as a supporter of multiculturalism, I view all humans as morally equal at their base (discounting any actions they take that changes that equality). I also tend not to view any culture as necessarily inherently evil. Certainly there are some that have abundant abhorrent traits but very few of them as groups approach life from the standpoint of "how can I be as big of an ass possible".

Well, I'm not so much in favor of labeling some cultures evil as I am labeling them inferior or superior to others.

Most people want to live their life, want to do the best they can to get by, will adapt to situations that they find themselves in through assimilation to one degree or another. Further, often they will have something to contribute to the group, a new way of thinking, a new way to solve a problem, or even a new way to enjoy yourself. To me, the free exchange of ideas inherently involves multiculturalism as the only way to ensure their culture doesn't bleed into yours is to shut down the flow of information from them to you.

That sounds like you're describing the concept of the melting pot - that in the free exchange of ideas the good ideas are adopted and the bad ideas discarded. But this assumes that there are bad ideas (and by implication bad cultural ideas) in the first place, which I'm not sure you'd agree with.

Is it a painful process? Absolutely. Look at American history. Did African natives and their descendants or Asian migrants and theirs integrate completely and peaceably overnight? Even with Europe, did the Irish instantly fit in? No, of course not. But, given time, exposure, and the general desire not to start shit, eventually things came together and have given us a lot of wonderful things. Can you imagine, for example, New Orleans culture without multiculturalism? We are a mutt nation, a hybrid of dozens of different ethnicities and cultures that have mixed and mingled and bled together over the decades and we are stronger for it. It is what makes us, us. Old prejudices were lost, old hatreds forgotten, and disparate groups eventually found relative harmony. I reject that somewhere along the way this process stopped working, that people just became to different or too intractable to learn from one another, to live with one another.

I'll stop rambling now if you want to respond but to recap, my argument against the OP is more than people are critical of their own culture not because they are multicultural but because inadequacies in their own culture are what impact them, multiculturalism or not is unrelated. I favor multiculturalism because I think cultures mixing together leaves them both richer and while it is a painful process, the end result of relative harmony is worth the growing pains when the alternative is alienation and continued misunderstanding.

This may owe itself to my lack of exposure to other cultures, but in response to the first bolded section I would say this: I find Americans to be far more critical and less proud of American culture than I do of, say, the French (although the French may be a bad example because they're, well, French). But Hanson's article touched upon that in the second page, where he cited a soccer game between Mexico and the US that took place in Pasadena. The Hispanic-Americans booed the American team. That would indicate that, far from criticizing their native culture (to the extent that booing a soccer team is cultural criticism), the Hispanic-Americans favored it over their adopted culture.

In short, self-cultural-criticism seems to come more from Americans.

To the second bolded section, if that is your definition of multiculturalism then I have no argument against it. My argument is against the claim that, since all cultures are valid, then immigrants from any culture have no duty generally to assimilate; that they should be allowed to behave according to the cultural norms of their native country.

 

[Atreus21]

Quite a few countries fit that description.

Good night

Quite a few western countries fit that description. My opinion is that the United States is the fullest expression of western culture.

 

[Abraxas]

Well, I'm not so much in favor of labeling some cultures evil as I am labeling them inferior or superior to others.

I don't disagree except with the caveat that cultures can be labeled as superior or inferior at something in particular. I am reluctant to simply say one culture is better overall than another because the question becomes better at what? American culture is perhaps better for freedom than, say, Saudi Culture, but perhaps may not be as good at unity since their culture is somewhat more homogeneous and carries with it the implicit acceptance of a single religion and the worldview that comes with it.

That sounds like you're describing the concept of the melting pot - that in the free exchange of ideas the good ideas are adopted and the bad ideas discarded. But this assumes that there are bad ideas (and by implication bad cultural ideas) in the first place, which I'm not sure you'd agree with.

Sure there are bad ideas. Letting people come over to the US and start honor killings or genital mutilation or a lot of the other abominable crap is a horrifying idea, even if it is common culture in some parts of the world. I have no problem saying there are some cultural practices that are absolutely abhorrent that should be fought against. More important to me than multiculturalism are human rights.

This may owe itself to my lack of exposure to other cultures, but in response to the first bolded section I would say this: I find Americans to be far more critical and less proud of American culture than I do of, say, the French (although the French may be a bad example because they're, well, French). But Hanson's article touched upon that in the second page, where he cited a soccer game between Mexico and the US that took place in Pasadena. The Mexican-Americans citizens booed the American team. That would indicate that, far from criticizing their native culture (to the extent that booing a team is cultural criticism), the Mexican-Americans favored it over their adopted culture.

I think a lot of Mexican-Americans identify more with Mexico than America. Many have come here not to be a part of America but to prosper economically and still identify with Mexico as their heritage because that is where their family is and where they expect to one day return.

In short, self-cultural-criticism seems to come more from Americans.

Perhaps, it is in our history.

To the second bolded section, if that is your definition of multiculturalism then I have no argument against it. My argument is against the claim that, since all cultures are valid, then immigrants from any culture have no duty generally to assimilate; that they should be allowed to behave according to the cultural norms of their native country.

Well, I think in general when you are going to a place you have an obligation to try to minimize the hardship you impose on others where reasonable and as a stranger in a strange land you should attempt to learn the culture and customs and embrace what is good. That doesn't mean they should have to abandon all of their customs and culture mind you, just that they shouldn't expect their new land to be their old one and lash out or become disruptive when it isn't.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Quite a few western countries fit that description. My opinion is that the United States is the fullest expression of western culture.

Things like the violence, death penalty, prison system, school system, war mongering, * holding the ghettos to task* things, tend to make the rest of the West look down on the US.
But shit is changing everyday, even in my quote there, it says US culture has changed lately.
Being a Canadian, I would say Canada is the fullest expression of western culture.
Norwegians probably think their system is the best
If we just look at politics and how that affects things, I would say Canada is getting heading away from the things a lot of us hold dear.

There is an evangelist on my TV right now preaching it's all somebody else's fault for not following his way
C'est la vie, they say. Well them Frenchies say anyways

 

[Atreus21]

I don't disagree except with the caveat that cultures can be labeled as superior or inferior at something in particular. I am reluctant to simply say one culture is better overall than another because the question becomes better at what? American culture is perhaps better for freedom than, say, Saudi Culture, but perhaps may not be as good at unity since their culture is somewhat more homogeneous and carries with it the implicit acceptance of a single religion and the worldview that comes with it.

Sure there are bad ideas. Letting people come over to the US and start honor killings or genital mutilation or a lot of the other abominable crap is a horrifying idea, even if it is common culture in some parts of the world. I have no problem saying there are some cultural practices that are absolutely abhorrent that should be fought against. More important to me than multiculturalism are human rights.


I think a lot of Mexican-Americans identify more with Mexico than America. Many have come here not to be a part of America but to prosper economically and still identify with Mexico as their heritage because that is where their family is and where they expect to one day return.
Perhaps, it is in our history.

Well, I think in general when you are going to a place you have an obligation to try to minimize the hardship you impose on others where reasonable and as a stranger in a strange land you should attempt to learn the culture and customs and embrace what is good. That doesn't mean they should have to abandon all of their customs and culture mind you, just that they shouldn't expect their new land to be their old one and lash out or become disruptive when it isn't.

 

[zephyrprime]

I kind of get the impression Tamerlan (wtf did his parents seriously name him after Timor the Lame? Who the fuck does that? It's like naming your kid after Genghis Khan) was more motivated by money than hatred. While on his sojourn he met up with a rich Saudi who offered him safe passage out of the US on a private jet, a new life, riches, toys, and 3 virgin wives if he'd commit a terrorist act against a few Americans. And if he could become a respected holy warrior while making money for it, it could be the opportunity that could turn his life around. Recognizing the choice between remaining a stay at home dad with a wife who spent every waking hour working and becoming idly wealthy he opted for the later. After the bombing he finds himself unable to make contact with his foreign investor who smartly vanished into the shadows. In a panic he carjacks an SUV, and tries his best to flee.

That story seems to fit a little better than "pissed off brothers decide to kill random Americans for Allah before panicked chase" but then I have a pretty vivid imagination.

Just doing it for money doesn't fit the modus operandi of any terrorists I've ever heard about. Much more likely that is was because they were religious zealots in my opinion.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Just doing it for money doesn't fit the modus operandi of any terrorists I've ever heard about. Much more likely that is was because they were religious zealots in my opinion.

Lots of suicide bombers have done it for money for their family.

Boys like Nematullah become suicide bombers for one reason: their families will be given some money in return for their lives. They will be able to buy some rice and flour and maybe a sheep.

Where’s My Ghost Money?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/opinion/sunday/wheres-my-ghost-money.html?_r=0

Lots have done it because their families have been held hostage.

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations to further their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

 

[glenn1]

In short, self-cultural-criticism seems to come more from Americans.

To the second bolded section, if that is your definition of multiculturalism then I have no argument against it. My argument is against the claim that, since all cultures are valid, then immigrants from any culture have no duty generally to assimilate; that they should be allowed to behave according to the cultural norms of their native country.

Of course cultural self-criticism comes from America, we're not North Korean regime-worshipping robots who think we're the ultimate expression of humankind. Recognizing a deficiency is the first step that a healthy society takes in improving itself - for example, was it a bad thing that blacks once criticized a racist, segregationist country for failing to live up to its ideals? I'm with Charles Schulz when he says, "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

And I don't understand your point about cultures being "valid," that's a meaningless adjective to apply - just as you wouldn't say "Chinese food is invalid" you wouldn't say "Chinese culture is invalid." You can say certain cultural beliefs or practices are primitive, immoral, irrational, etc. but those are particular, not universal criticisms of specific elements of culture.

 

[lagokc]

Just doing it for money doesn't fit the modus operandi of any terrorists I've ever heard about. Much more likely that is was because they were religious zealots in my opinion.

Quite a lot of terrorism in the Middle East starts with some rich Saudi going to a goat herder and saying, "look, you're a goat herder, as was your father and his father and so will the rest of your kids and grandkids and they'll never make anything of themselves. If you go and blow yourself up, I will pay for your kids to go to college in America or Europe so they can be doctors or engineers." And it works because they make good on their promises.

Now I'm not saying that religion didn't play a role (and I will take any excuse to bash religion especially Islam) but from what I've read the videos from Tamerlan's youtube channel suggested he was all about the Benjamins.