Polite Kid

Am I mistaken in thinking that our people are weakening when it comes to Hispanics?
Over at AmRen, which in many ways is not all that atypical of (moderately) pro-White/ethnonationalist sites, I am seeing a lot of posts which compare Hispanics favorably to blacks, and which praise Hispanics in some way, even if faintly.
On this thread, which had to do with changing demographics and the encouragement of outmarriage for Whites, there were comments like this:
''There is no such thing as a "hispanic". There are white people, black people and amerind (mestizos) all of whom speak spanish. They have extremely different genetic backgrounds, do not mix, for the most part, yet speak the same language.
Most of the "miscegenation" they are talking about is nothing but english speaking whites marrying spanish speaking whites. And having kids who are white. No different than a french person marrying a white person from britain or spain.''
Well, the old bit of sophistry about Hispanic not being a race has been around for a while. Technically speaking, no, Hispanic is not a race, but a linguistic designation, though in a way the word Hispanic does denote various non-White peoples who speak Spanish, given the undeniable fact that the great majority of Hispanic immigrants are nonwhite.
No doubt some skeptic would challenge me on that, and say 'prove it', but going by the evidence of our senses, it is apparent that the vast majority are nonwhite for the most part, with little to no European blood.
In some localities, like Florida, there may be many White Cubans, but in most other places which have large Spanish-speaking populations, the majority of them are either Amerindian or mulatto (as with the Dominicans and Puerto Ricans in New York). So when we associate the 'Hispanic' label with non-European origin, we are on pretty solid ground.
Some people insist that many Hispanics are White (European-descended), like this commentator:
''I work around an awful lot of latinos, and upwards of a quarter of them, especially the south americans, are basically white descended from numerous waves of european immigration to that region. (Spanish, Italian, English, German, etc) Lighter skinned mestizos are also mostly white in their genetic makeup.
Many others like mexicans and puerto ricans have a lot of white in them too, so the white race can survive some mixing with them, as long as the core western values predominate.''
This man does not say where he lives and works, but it must be an unusual place with lots of European-blooded Hispanics. But this comment is so out of touch with reality I have to wonder if the writer is attempting to put over a bit of propaganda, attempting to misrepresent reality.
And the second paragraph leads to one of my recurring themes: culture vs. race. I've said repeatedly, ad nausaeam probably, that race and culture go together, and that culture merely reflects genetics. We can't say that culture exists in a vacuum, and that it is a disembodied thing which can basically be 'put on' by anyone, like one of those one-size-fits-all garments.
However, I don't think any ethnonationalist would agree that 'core Western values' can be carried on no matter what the demographics or racial makeup of a country may be. I would hope that no real ethnopatriot or ethnonationalist would be so cavalier as to think that our people can survive even if we absorb Hispanic or other genes. No, we would not be 'we' then; we would be somebody else, probably a Spanglish-speaking exotic-looking people whose 'culture' and environment would resemble Latin America more than Europe or Old America.
But this comment takes the cake:
''Point I am making is that the white latinas may be a salvation for the white race, along with importing some russian/ukranian [sic] type girls to help the white population survive. Things have changed in the last 20ish years, once it was more single females, but now with miscenation [sic] there are more single white guys, and thankfully, most single guys dont have any desire for the black girls as the white girls do for the black guys.''
This kind of thinking is becoming not at all uncommon at AmRen and some other such sites.
First of all, I think the amount of outmarriage is greatly overestimated by men who write these kinds of comments. The statistics show that it is just not as common as some claim it to be. It may be that the people who say these things live in areas where the rate is especially high (liberal big cities, Seattle for example) or other areas, perhaps with a high proportion of White underclass types who tend to adopt underclass ways and to mate outside their race.
Or it may be that the people who claim all the attractive White girls are mating with outsiders are people who magnify the examples they see out there in the world until they believe it is widespread or epidemic. Or it may be that these guys are not succeeding with the opposite sex for various reasons, and want to rationalize their lack of success by blaming it on women supposedly preferring nonwhites.
Some men have an attraction to the exotic-looking women, like Latinas and Asians, and this is a longstanding thing, since long before multiculturalism and political correctness. Some men, understandably, are attracted to exotic Eastern European women. But to say that American or other Western men have to look for 'salvation for the white race' by mating with 'white latina' women is reaching a bit.
If we are going to discuss 'White Latina women', I can think of two well-known examples.
Exhibit A and Exhibit B if you can watch a 3-minute video of her.
I acknowledge they are extreme examples, but I suspect they reflect a widespread cultural attitude or style,
Sure, there are White Latina women; both of those women were immigrants who married White Anglo men. One of the women was well-educated and quite intelligent. Still, despite their outward appearance, I would say that cultural differences between the women and their hapless husbands contributed considerably to their, ahem, marital problems. As a result one of the men is now dead, and the other one, shall we say, scarred.
The second woman has now snagged yet another Anglo White male; I thought only stupid women married psychopaths. But some men find that Latina allure irresistible, knife or no knife.
Sure, bad things happen in non-mixed marriages, but cultural differences of some magnitude do exist even among people of European descent, especially as you mix Southern European or Eastern European with Western European. There are just differences in outlook, temperament, character, values, manners, emotional styles. The idea that 'love conquers all' is just romantic-age twaddle. It sounds nice and makes for a good happy-ever-after movie, but in reality, love does not conquer all, much less does lust conquer anything.
Culture does matter, because it is intertwined with genetics.
I've worked with people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe and there is a greater distance between us and them than between us and Western Europeans, although even with them, misunderstandings and crossed signals occur.
Also, the idea that Hispanics are 'Western' is absurd, yet it is still a popular claim made these days; they are 'Christian' so therefore they are Western, or they speak a European language so they are part of our heritage. This is erroneous, and we cannot gamble the future of our country and our people on that kind of faulty belief.
So, where do we stand? Are people softening towards Latinos and about to join them? Or am I being alarmist?

Labels: Assimilation, Culture, Miscegenation, Multiculturalism, Outmarriage

For a change, I am going to write a little about a couple of subjects that I really enjoy writing about: Cajuns. And history.
Part of my childhood, a very happy part, was spent in South Louisiana. And one of the best things about 1950s South Louisiana was the people there, who were mostly Cajun.
I have a special fondness for Cajuns and their way of life. Who wouldn't like Cajuns? They are known for their joie de vivre, their joy of living, and for their easy-going, open ways, their down-to-earth attitude, their sense of humor, and their wonderful food. And their music.
But despite all this, they are a group of people with rather a sad history.
Cajuns are a group of people of mostly French descent, whose ancestors settled in Canada, and who were displaced in a tragic event referred to as Le Grand Dérangement.
Le Grand Dérangement ("The Great Disturbance") is the name given to the Acadians� 1755 mass expulsion from their homeland by the British military. An illegal action undertaken during peacetime without approval of the British government in London, the expulsion was devised by Major Charles Lawrence, a professional British soldier who in 1754 took command of the colony as its lieutenant governor.
Later appointed full governor, Lawrence feared that the Acadians, despite their claims of neutrality, would become fifth columnists in the event of another war with France. The Acadians� numerical advantage over their British overseers magnified his fear. In addition, Lawrence desired the Acadians� fertile farmlands for loyal Anglo-Protestant settlers. Failing to acquire from the Acadians an ironclad oath of allegiance to the British crown, Lawrence summoned Acadian males to fortified posts under false pretenses and arrested them while soldiers burned homes and boats and rounded up women and children. Herded into ports, Lawrence divided the Acadians into groups according to age and sex, loaded them onto overcrowded vessels, and scattered them across thousands of miles in a deliberate attempt to wipe out the Acadian identity. (Numbering some 12,000 to 18,000 total, only 6,000 to 7,000 Acadians were actually expelled on British ships, the remainder fleeing to neighboring regions.) According to some estimates, about half the pre-expulsion Acadian population died from disease, exposure, and starvation brought about directly by the British operation (which by modern standards arguably constituted an incident of genocide or "ethnic cleansing"). ''
As usual, in these historical accounts of 18th century colonial North America, the British are cast as the bad guys. I will overlook that for now. It certainly does seem as though the Cajuns suffered some real ill-treatment in this event. But Canada's loss was eventually Louisiana's gain.
From the Wikipedia entry on Cajuns:
Cajuns are an ethnic group mainly living in Louisiana, consisting of the descendants of Acadian exiles and peoples of other ethnicities with whom the Acadians eventually intermarried on the semitropical frontier. Today, the Cajuns make up a significant portion of south Louisiana's population, and have exerted an enormous impact on the state's culture.
[...]
The Cajuns retain a unique dialect of the French language and numerous other cultural traits that distinguish them as an ethnic group. Cajuns were officially recognized by the U.S. government as a national ethnic group in 1980 per a discrimination lawsuit filed in federal district court. Presided over by Judge Edwin Hunter, the case, known as Roach v. Dresser Industries Valve and Instrument Division (494 F.Supp. 215, D.C. La., 1980), hinged on the issue of the Cajuns' ethnicity. Significantly, Judge Hunter held in his ruling that:
"We conclude that plaintiff is protected by Title VII's ban on national origin discrimination. The Louisiana Acadian (Cajun) is alive and well. He is "up front" and "main stream." He is not asking for any special treatment. By affording coverage under the "national origin" clause of Title VII he is afforded no special privilege. He is given only the same protection as those with English, Spanish, French, Iranian, Portuguese, Mexican, Italian, Irish, et al., ancestors."
From the Encyclopedia of Cajun Culture:
Dictionaries generally define Cajun as "a Louisianian who descends from French-speaking Acadians." However, many common Cajun surnames � for instance, Soileau, Romero, Huval, Fontenot � are not Acadian in origin, but rather are Spanish, German or French Creole. Some are even of Anglo or Scotch-Irish origin, as in the case of famed Cajun musicians Lawrence Walker and Dennis McGee.
For this reason, contemporary scholars of Cajun history and culture tend to offer a more complex, comprehensive view, attributing the traits of modern-day Cajuns to a dynamic, unending process of ethnic interaction. Although modern Cajuns are largely homogenous, their ancestry consists of a mixture of many ethnic groups.
Most early Acadians originated in the Centre-Ouest region of France, but others came from families of Spanish, Irish, Scottish, English, Basque, and, in a few instances, American Indian heritage. After their 1755 expulsion from Nova Scotia, Acadians seeking refuge in South Louisiana again intermixed with other ethnic groups, particularly with French, Spanish, German, and, later, Anglo-American settlers, as well as Indians (albeit to a lesser extent). Historian Carl A. Brasseaux has shown, for example, that after the Civil War over fifty percent of brides and grooms with Acadian surnames were marrying persons with non-Acadian surnames.''
From another source:
In July 1632 three hundred French settlers arrived in Acadia to carve out frontier homes near the community of Port Royal. Fifty-five percent of these Acadian "first families" hailed from the Centre-Ouest region of France (Poitou, Aunis, Angoumois, and Saintonge); of these, eighty-five percent came from the La Chausée area of Poitou. These families included Doucet, Bourgeois, Boudrot (Boudreaux), Terriault (Theriot), Richard, LeBlanc, Thibodeaux, Comeau(x), Cormier, Hébert, Brault (Breaux), Granger, and Girouard.
Most of these and later Acadian settlers derived from Old World peasant stock, shared similar cultural traits, and on the frontier developed a common Acadian identity.
According to historian Carl A. Brasseaux, the Acadian pioneers were characterized by individualism, adaptability, pragmatism, industriousness, egalitarian principles, and an ability to pull together when threatened. They also possessed extended families, and distinctive language and speech patterns. The Acadians were also typically non-materialistic, seeking only economic independence and a decent standard of living through an agrarian way of life. Some ethnic diversity did exist among the Acadians, however: a few were of English, Scottish, Irish, Spanish, Basque, and even American Indian origin.
Those of French origin, however, dominated the cultural landscape, and as intermarriage occurred the Acadian population quickly became homogenized. Studies indicate that between 1654 and 1755 the Acadian population grew from 300-350 colonists to about 12,000-15,000 (despite a fifty-percent child mortality rate). Sources: Ancelet et al., Cajun Country; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun; Brasseaux, "Scattered to the Wind"; Domengeaux, "Native-Born Acadians"; Dormon, People Called Cajuns.''
[Emphasis mine]
So despite their fewness in number and the centuries that have passed since their arrival in North America, the Cajuns have maintained their identity as a distinct group of people. For the first century or so of their life in America, they lived side by side with various other settler groups in Louisiana, but kept their distinctivness as a people. It was not until the upheavals of the War Between the States and Reconstruction that their identity was somewhat threatened by social change.
Of that era, Julie Elizabeth Hebert says:
Several stereotypes which still accompany the idea of "a true Cajun" developed in these eras: lazy, ignorant, illiterate, and simple. Able to remain unassimilated for the most part, Cajuns continued to act in the ways they had before the war. Like all good Southerners, they still loved card games, parties, and communal get togethers, but unlike the Americans, Cajuns continued to work at their own pace, a work ethic which stood in complete contrast to the American idea of progress. James Dorman, in his work on the ethnicity of the Cajun culture, quotes several journalists of the day who described the Cajuns as follows: "a Utopian dreamer and idler...�one who sits on the skirts of progress," "the Acadian who overworks is indeed a rara avis [rare bird]," and "most of them are mere squatters on the Prairies." Southerners, in general, thought little of the Cajuns and their culture because their values negated the closely held American values of material wealth, the Protestant work ethic, and progress. Cajuns, themselves, thought little of American standards including those regarding education, and Cajun folk wisdom summed up the Cajun opinion on education: "My son is rascal enough without an education." Cajuns reveled in their illiteracy, and this attitude concerning education served as another reason why the Americans looked down upon the "poor," "stupid" Cajuns of south Louisiana.
Despite these qualities which fostered a negative stereotype of Cajuns, observers of Cajun communities repeatedly remarked upon two distinct Cajun ethnic qualities in a positive light: hospitality and family ties. Travelers in the South during the post-Civil War era commented upon the friendliness with which the Cajun family welcomed strangers into their home and their willingness to share what little they had with those in need. Motivated, not by a conscious sense of charity, but rather by an inherited trait of hospitality, Cajuns opened their homes to all who graced their doorsteps. Continuation of the strong family ties among the Cajun communities, the second positive quality of Cajun culture, survived through the institution of marriage. Cajun youth often married among their own kind. Women of Cajun descent usually married men of similar heritage; however, if a young Cajun woman decided to marry a German or Creole, the family ties, although slightly altered, still remained strong within her own family. According to most historians of this culture, the Cajun culture continued to flourish mainly because of the female population and the roles mothers played in childrearing and in the preserving of family customs and traditions. Cajun women reared their children while the men worked, and if the woman was Cajun, she reared her children to appreciate and respect their Cajun traditions and heritage.
Hebert describes how the expansion of railroads reduced the isolation of the Cajuns, and increased the trend toward cultural homogenization. However, those Cajuns who did not choose the urban lifestyle became the keepers of Cajun culture in their rural small communities.
Huey P. Long, the governor of Louisiana from 1928-1932 (and later Senator), also did his part in discouraging the isolation of the Cajuns by means of his road improvements.
Those influenced by these improvements most likely did not realize the extent to which these improvements functioned as infiltrators of their isolationism and their ethnic culture. Despite all the necessary changes brought by the Long administration, one piece of legislation issued a substantial blow to the Cajun ethnic identity: the Louisiana Constitution of 1921. Through this document, the legislature denied public schools the right to instruct children in both French and English. Most Cajun rural folk and children were monolingual and able to speak very few words of English. Louisiana legislators through this law in essence denied Cajun children the right to education in their primary language forcing them either to learn English or remain illiterate.[...]
As the ethnic ties of the community as a whole continued to unravel, the negative stereotype in regards to French speakers remained a constant on the Louisiana social landscape. Through all of this, rural Cajun culture survived almost untouched, and observers of these decades described the rural Cajuns in much the same way as others had described them in previous decades:
"Their homes are always spotless, and there is always a welcome and a cup of black coffee for any caller, even though he be a stranger," a typical Cajun "lives in his own home, usually with several relatives, besides his immediate family. He keeps a cow, some chickens, and raises a few vegetables which he sometimes sells. Sometimes he helps keep a store in the nearby village," and "an unsophisticated agrarian people who have clung tenaciously to their old customs and traditions."
Because of their "geographic, occupation, and language isolation," the rural Cajuns achieved a social isolationism "greater than that of any other American ethnic group." People in the 1920s and 1930s identified this Cajun ethnicity and began to describe the Cajun culture based on its ethnic qualities. While the urban Cajun assimilated, the rural Cajun in his isolation preserved his cultural traditions.
Later on, World War II, which took many young Cajun men far from home and heritage, further encouraged their assimilation into the larger society. Following the war, the Rural Electrification Administration brought the 'modern world' into rural Acadiana, and the spread of television in the 1950s was a further blow to traditional Cajun ways.
Other modernizing trends took their toll:
With the advent of supermarkets, the need for boucheries deteriorated, and the variety of foods available in these markets expanded the Cajun palate which undermined the traditional cuisine. The bals de maisons found their replacements in the radio, the television set, and the movie theater. Cajun music came under attack, as well, and in the 1950s others called this music "Chanky-Chank" music "suggesting the simplicity of instrumentation and rhythm as well as the characteristically reiterative harmonic line." Modernization resulted in a definite decline in the rural Cajun ethnic culture.''
And then came the 1960s, which was the beginning of a wholesale tearing-down of traditional mores in general, including those of Cajun country. But one benefit of the 1960s and 70s was a new interest in ethnicity and roots. 'Folk music' enjoyed a wave of popularity. At first, most of the 'folk music' craze was a dilettantish dabbling by academics and college students looking for something quaint and different and 'authentic'. The result was manufactured 'folk music' like that of the Kingston Trio and the college 'Hootenanny' craze. However, it did eventually lead many people to explore genuine roots music and honest-to-goodness traditional music from many sources. Cajuns benefited from this, as Cajun music became respectable and respected again, rather than being disparaged as 'chanky-chank' music. And not only Cajun music, but Cajun history, culture, and the Cajun dialect of French gained new attention.
With all this, however, the Cajun people are unmistakably part of America. There is something quintessentially American about their character along with their distinctiveness as a people. They, to my mind, are an example of a healthy ethnic group which is nonetheless part of America. There is none of the chip-on-the-shoulder, outsider victimhood mentality among Cajuns, in my experience. There may be some individuals with such attitudes but I have not encountered them.
Do I contradict myself? I now and then rail about unassimilable ethnic groups who have a stand-offish, us-vs.-them attitude towards the rest of us. I remember a discussion at Free Republic a few years ago involving Cajuns and their language, and somebody made a snarky comparison between Cajuns and Mexican immigrants who speak Spanish. The comparison incensed me; the attitudes of Cajuns and Mexicans are not comparable. At all. Cajuns love Louisiana, and they love America. Cajuns carry no residual allegiance to France or to Canada, their original home in the New World. This country, specifically Louisiana, is their home. They have no centuries-old grudge against Anglo-Americans as have Latinos. I remember no hostility in school between kids of Cajun descent and those of Anglo or other descent. Everybody got along famously; the Cajun kids were the most accepting and agreeable of all the classmates I had during my school years, despite my 'Texan' origin. There was a kind of jocular rivalry with Texans at that time, but no animosity. (And maybe it helped that I had a surname that, despite its non-French origin, was a surname borne by some Cajun families in the area.)
And somehow, along with their distinctiveness, Cajuns seem to be very much a part of the South. Their ways, although identifiably 'Cajun' are also part and parcel of the South. There is a compatibility there. There is no sense of disharmony or cultural clash between south Louisiana and, say, Texas. They differ, but there are commonalities. They are part of a larger whole: America, and the South specifically.
But the thought that crosses my mind most often these days in connection with the Cajuns is that they represent a group of people who might have disappeared centuries ago, but who have survived, despite being a small and rather vulnerable group of people, who were displaced and harried by historical events. Yet they have maintained their identity while still becoming part of the United States of America. It proves to me that if the sense of belonging to a group, and a pride in that group, is strong enough, the people and their culture can survive even if greatly outnumbered. That may be a lesson we will have to take from the Cajuns, we or our children and grandchildren, as they become an outnumbered and displaced group of people in the new 'America' or whatever takes its place.
From the website of the wonderful Cajun band, Balfa Toujours, this passage seems apposite:
Today the Cajun people are standing tall. After 400 years of almost constant pressure to conform to the larger cultures surrounding them, they have proven that their identity is too strong to be eradicated. This challenge has been increased greatly by the developments of this century, which have taken their toll on many subcultures. It appears that these challenges have largely been met in Louisiana, with many young people now taking pride in their heritage. A clear example of this is with the language. In the 1950's and 1960's, many people were punished in school for speaking French. Today, there are French immersion schools in which all classes are taught in a language that was considered shameful only a few decades ago.
This cultural revival has brought the Cajun people a lot of attention. While this is good for the Cajuns, certainly, it is perhaps not enough. It was Dewey Balfa's sincere hope that the further effect of his work would be to inspire other cultures as well. He hoped that others would see his pride and begin to feel it more strongly about their own heritage. If the story of the Cajuns can help to accomplish this, it will truly have done something marvelous.''
We who are the sons and daughters of Anglo-America can learn from the Cajuns a pride in their heritage, their people, and culture. If we can regain that, we will have half-won the battle.
However, one advantage the Cajuns had which is denied us in our 21st century America is isolation and freedom of association. They were able to have their own little area of South Louisiana in which their culture could persist and thrive, and they had the strength of community and kinship ties to sustain their culture. Our mass Tower of Babel culture does not afford us this luxury, as our communities are being purposely broken up.
Can we Americans survive as a distinct people, possibly even a minority people, in the face of the forcible multiculturalizing of our country, and despite the attempt to discredit our history and our culture? I think it will be an uphill journey unless we return to a more manageable, decentralized way of life with local control, and regain our freedom of association. Think small'; think local. Remember how destructive the mass media can be, and re-create a genuine way of life apart from the pernicious effects of television and mass pop culture.
Forum comments are here.

Labels: American Culture, American History, Assimilation, Cajuns, Ethnicity, Freedom Of Association

Chapter II in the 'shape up or....?' story begins with Newt Gingrich, who was on Fox News today, selling his dandy new '5-step Assimilation Plan' for immigrants. Now I confess that I didn't have time to catch the whole segment, and I saw only the beginning, where he began with the obligatory disclaimer, you know, the bit where the smarmy politician says 'I'm all in favor of legal immigration...' , so as to ward off the racism charges. Now that phrase usually causes me to reach for the remote, because I know that what follows will be some kind of half-hearted, serpent-tongued denunciation of illegal immigration, while still being immigrant-friendly.
However, I caught enough of Newt to hear him say that he favors legal immigration, and he believes that most immigrants come here because they want to be Americans, but they need to learn English. So we need to have a program for teaching them English, so that they assimilate.
Just as with John Howard's plea for immigrants to Australia to learn English and assimilate, as far as it goes, that idea is fine, but is it enough? Does speaking English guarantee assimilation? Yes, it is a part of assimilating, but does learning the language in and of itself lead inevitably to assimilating, and is it a proof of assimilation?
Learning English is the bare minimum of what we must expect of would-be immigrants. In fact if they are determined to come to this country, common sense would suggest that they ought to know some English even before they make the trip here. American culture is a worldwide thing these days, (to the chagrin of many people); so those who want to learn English can even learn a fair bit from movies or TV programs. Enterprising immigrants of the past have learned English in that fashion. However, as we know, there are many outwardly-acculturated immigrants and even children of immigrants who are not assimilated. Yesterday I mentioned the Lackawanna Six, the terror plotters who had grown up in an American suburb, but who were conspiring towards some act of terror towards 'fellow' Americans. The 7/7 bombers in the UK are another example of outwardly assimilated Moslems who were so full of hatred towards those whose country had nurtured and educated them that they were willing to kill others, strangers, and even themselves for their twisted ideals. Speaking fluent English, using the latest youth slang, made none of these young people part of the countries they lived in. They were in the country but not of it. The 'we' they identified with was not Britain, or the United States, but the Islamic 'we.' Just as many of our Latino immigrants, and even native-born Hispanics, identify with their Raza, their 'gente', and fly the Mexican flag or the Dominican flag or whatever, pledging their allegiance to their blood kin, not to Americans.
So Gingrich is peddling facile, cheap answers, and in doing so, is furthering the multicultural agenda. If he can lull the easily-pleased among us into thinking that we can solve the difficult problems of mass immigration by his '5-step program', then he is part of the problem. He is promoting, by implication, the idea that we are all really the same, and interchangeable, if only we all learn a common language and participate in a common, lowest common denominator mass culture.
Evidently Newt is one of those who believes that everybody is potentially an American, but the evidence of reality and common sense tells us that not everybody is equally assimilable, and further, that maybe some are not assimilable in any real sense at all. But admitting this is denying the liberal presuppositions of egalitarianism, and the core liberal idea that we all self-create, and that the key is to make immigrants want to be American. We just have to get them to want to re-invent themselves as Americans, and the way to do that is to have a 5-step program, or reach out to them, and so on; just the kind of thing the neoconservatives in the GOP have been pushing.
Why are some immigrants seemingly impervious to assimilation, or Americanization, as it used to be called? The real ideologues among us would deny that such is the case. They will continue to insist that everybody is the same, despite surface differences. But history indicates otherwise. In the past, most of our immigrants came from European cultures, and the process of acculturation and assimilation were relatively easy, although some groups have been much slower to assimilate. We might argue that some groups have resisted assimilation, and this is true to the extent that their cultures were dissimilar to the core Anglo-Saxon Protestant American culture. But eventually most European immigrants did assimilate. However with our current predominantly non-Western immigrants, legal and illegal, their cultures are at odds with our own to a considerable extent; their mores, their habits, their ways, are distant from our own. Add to this the fact that most of our immigrants of today come from cultures in which Westerners, especially Americans, are viewed negatively. Americans in particular may be envied by many but they are also greatly resented. Many people in Third World countries view Americans as obscenely rich, and expect handouts from Americans as their due. I learned this first-hand, when my home address was made known in a publication, and I began to receive begging -- and demanding -- letters from strangers in African countries. They assumed that all Americans were fabulously rich and that they need only ask, and receive money or gifts. I suppose the 'Nigerian e-mail scam' had not been thought of yet, but the same phenomenon is at work there. Americans are seen, at best, as rich, gullible, and there for the fleecing. At worst, we are pictured as exploiters, oppressors, usurpers of their territory, in the case of our Latino neighbors. Now what can be expected when we import these attitudes en masse to our country? And can a few English lessons, or even fluency in English hope to counter all of that? In fact, when the immigrants are fluent enough in English to watch American TV and read English-language newspapers, they will simply be exposed to even more anti-American propaganda, as served up by our leftist entertainment media and news media. Our educational system, too, is riddled with disparaging messages about American history and American society.
Assimilation worked, in the past, for several reasons: we were selective about who we admitted to this country. They came from compatible countries, and we limited the numbers. We never admitted immigrants indiscriminately as we are doing now with our de facto open borders. Large numbers of immigrants, and the establishment of immigrant enclaves were never part of the plan.
We were able to assimilate immigrants in part, too, because ours was a confident, assertive culture, and we did not adopt a weak, appeasing attitude to newcomers.
There was no large-scale support for foreign-language communities in old America; they were expected to learn English, and most of them did so willingly. Few or none of our past immigrants came here with a grudge against America for some perceived past wrong or injustice. Few or none came here with the intent of doing harm to Americans or of subverting American society, or reclaiming it in the name of their native country.
Now, we are recklessly opening the doors to people who may well have a subversive agenda, as at least some of our Hispanic immigrants, or they may even desire to actually kill and destroy, as the 9/11 hijackers did.
Another complicating factor in our policies of admitting mostly third-world, minority immigrants is our current, ongoing racial issues. America, since the 1960s especially, has been embroiled in the mainstreaming of black Americans into our society. As a result, the more extreme black leaders perpetuate racial conflict and a whole industry built on the guilt feelings of the American majority. We are still trying to negotiate our way beyond that impasse, and now, into the middle of an already difficult situation, we import millions of non-white immigrants who are now adding their voices to the chorus of grievances against majority America. We now have preferential policies like 'Affirmative Action', supposedly in the name of making restitution for past discrimination (two wrongs apparently do make a right, according to some), and now the newly-arrived minorities, who have absolutely no claim to having been 'historic victims of discrimination' in America, are now entitled to all the benefits of AA, as well as many other social entitlements based on skin color or ethnicity. Now, thanks to mass third-world immigration, majority Americans have millions of new claimants to special considerations, and eligible for benefits. How will this all play out when the American majority is the new minority? How will the descendants of majority Americans, as an outnumbered minority, still be expected to make amends and restitution to an aggrieved collection of former minorities?
None of those who have concocted this present insane immigration policy has ever addressed any of these questions. Instead they pretend that things can go on just as they are, even when the demographics of this country are absolutely turned on their head, with today's majority reduced to a minority. But considerations like this don't enter the minds of the social engineers. And I consider Newt to be as much a part of the problem as any of the rest of the immigration enthusiasts.
Newt, how many is too many? Does this country have a carrying capacity? Or do we just keep on packing them in until we reach India-style population density? And by the way, Mr. Arch-conservative Newt, what about the economic burden all this immigration creates? Aren't conservatives supposed to be the small government guys, the ones who crunch the numbers and see that we aren't living beyond our means? Where's the fiscal responsibility?
On a much smaller scale, I wonder what the costs of Newt's little 'assimilation program' would be? Our government already spends, big-time, on 'Hispanic outreach', interpreters, counselors, special studies of the Hispanic population and their needs, educational programs, subsidized tuition for illegal students, Hispanic health programs, special small-business programs, and so on. We are not even talking about the other costs, such as the bankrupt hospitals, overcrowded jails, overloaded courts, crimes by immigrants and the resultant expenses, lives lost via immigrant crime, costs of monitoring possible Moslem terror activities -- I could go on, but we all know. Yet we have to spend even more money to spoon-feed reluctant immigrants the English language? Just take away all the bilingual documents and teachers, take away Univision and Telemundo and all the rest of the bilingual catering, and they might just have to learn English.
But even if they all learn fluent English, that will not be a solution to the problem, which is that we have too many immigrants, too fast, and at too high a cost to our society in cultural terms as well as financial terms. The levels of immigration we have now are unprecedented in American history, I think the same can be said for many Western countries, like Australia, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Something hitherto unknown is being carried out in the West, and nobody, not our politicians or academics or media, none of them know where it it leading us, or what the end result will be. Those of us who are not woolly-minded academics or loopy leftist utopians know that the result will not be a utopia. We do know, based on demographic projections, that we majority Western peoples will be on the outside looking in, dispossessed in our own countries, and with nowhere to go. To believe, as some people are content to say they do, that all the problems will work themselves out, and people will just learn to get along, is highly unrealistic. That kind of faith, at least in human beings, is something I don't have; it's a huge leap in the dark.
The only hope our country has is for a resurgence of real, genuine conservatism, which in true conservative fashion, is willing to take a hard-eyed look at where we are, on the edge of a precipice, and to speak the truth about the situation. From there, we need to try to find a way to step back from the precipice, if we want to preserve our countries as we have known them, and to preserve a way of life which it took our ancestors many generations of toil and blood to achieve. If 'conservatives' are willing to throw all that away, gambling on some bizarre exercise in social engineering on a global scale, then that is proof that they are not conservatives in any real sense at all. Any conservative, falsely so-called, who promotes mass immigration, or unending immigration, is deceived or deceiving us.
At this moment in our history, the primary concern should be preserving our country, our people, our way of life, our heritage. Everything else is a secondary consideration.
Everything.

Labels: Assimilation, Conservatives, English Language, Immigration

Henry George, in his work called Social Problems, written in 1883, wrote a great deal that seems to resonate today, even though he lived in a very different time than ours.
George witnessed the effects of the great wave of immigrants that broke on our shores starting in the mid-19th century. He recognized some very important factors in the development of America, and he sensed the pressures that were building with the growth of our country which began during that era of mass immigration.
In some ways, the changes that were happening in George's time are similar to the changes we are seeing in our day, although of course the magnitude of change is greater today. Another factor which was very different in George's day was that, along with all the immigration from Europe, our country was also increasing population by natural means; birth rates were quite high at that time, and so Americans were on the move, looking for more space and more opportunity.
"And across the continent, from east to west, from the older to the newer States, an even greater migration is going on. Our people emigrate more readily than those of Europe, and increasing as European immigration is, it is yet becoming a less and less important factor of our growth, as compared with the natural increase of our population. At Chicago and St. Paul, Omaha and Kansas City, the volume of the westward-moving current has increased, not diminished. From what, so short a time ago, was the new West of unbroken prairie and native forest, goes on, as children grow up, a constant migration to a newer West.
This westward expansion of population has gone on steadily since the first settlement of the Eastern shore. It has been the great distinguishing feature in the conditions of our people. Without its possibility we would have been in nothing what we are. Our higher standard of wages and of comfort and of average intelligence, our superior self-reliance, energy, inventiveness, adaptability and assimilative power, spring as directly from this possibility of expansion as does our unprecedented growth. All that we are proud of in national life and national character comes primarily from our background of unused land."
This is an important point. It is pertinent to the entry I wrote the other day, 'Flight or Fight?' Our ancestors were a mobile people, always looking for better opportunities elsewhere. And the open spaces, the vast areas of the West that still remained to be settled and developed would, in a few generations, become scarcer. George noted that this closing of the frontiers would have social repercussions; these frontiers would cease to be available as a safety valve for a restless people.
''It may be doubted if the relation of the opening of the New World to the development of modern civilization is yet fully recognized. In many respects the discovery of Columbus has proved the most important event in the history of the European world since the birth of Christ. How important America has been to Europe as furnishing an outlet for the restless, the dissatisfied, the oppressed and the downtrodden; how influences emanating from the freer opportunities and freer life of America have reacted upon European thought and life -- we can begin to realize only when we try to imagine what would have been the present condition of Europe had Columbus found only a watery waste between Europe and Asia, or even had he found here a continent populated as India, or China, or Mexico, were populated.
And, correlatively, one of the most momentous events that could happen to the modern world would be the ending of this possibility of westward expansion. That it must sometime end is evident when we remember that the earth is round.
Practically, this event is near at hand. Its shadow is even now stealing over us. Not that there is any danger of this continent being really overpopulated. Not that there will not be for a long time to come, even at our present rate of growth, plenty of unused land or of land only partially used. But to feel the results of what is called pressure of population, to realize here pressure of the same kind that forces European emigration upon our shores, we shall not have to wait for that.''
A little more than a century after George wrote these words, we are seeing these pressures of population increasing, as there are no more lands for westward expansion.
''What I want to point out is that we are very soon to lose one of the most important conditions under which our civilization has been developing -- that possibility of expansion over virgin soil that has given scope and freedom to American life, and relieved social pressure in the most progressive European nations. Tendencies, harmless under this condition, may become most dangerous when it is changed. Gunpowder does not explode until it is confined. You may rest your hand on the slowly ascending jaw of a hydraulic press. It will only gently raise it. But wait a moment till it meets resistance!''
George warned that once the safety valve of open spaces no longer existed, the 'new wine' which had been poured into old bottles would ferment, and pressures would have to be relieved lest this have disastrous consequences.
George was something of a populist and a reformer; his views seem rather liberal on many issues, such as the causes of poverty, but as was typical for his day, he had what would now be called rather 'racialist' ideas about the Anglo-Saxon race and the European race generally. He argued against Chinese immigration, and he did so in terms that would almost certainly be denounced as 'bigoted' and 'xenophobic' in our priggish, PC era.
He was certainly no multiculturalist, and no believer in indiscriminate mixtures of populations in our country.
''Now it is not merely that the greater the difference in language, customs and habits of thought, the greater the difficulties of assimilation between different peoples brought into contact, but the greater the difference the less powerfully do assimilative forces act, for the greater are the tendencies, both attractive and repulsive, to the formation and maintenance of separate societies in which the peculiarities of each are perpetuated.''
George not only recognized the great cultural/racial differences between Europeans and Chinese, and the non-assimilable qualities of the Chinese in America, but he pointed out that cheap immigrant labor depressed wages, a fact which some stubbornly refuse to acknowledge even now.
''He [the Chinese immigrant] may learn something of the languages, something of the laws, and religion and arts and customs, and may adopt some of the methods and habits of the country in which he sojourns, just as the English in India learn and adopt such things of the natives; but as the Englishman in India remains an Englishman and does not become a Hindoo, so does the Chinaman in America remain essentially a Chinaman.
[...]Thus Chinese immigration differs from European immigration in being practically non-assimilable.
[...]That in course of time should their immigration continue, the Chinese would bring their women and permanently settle, just as they have permanently settled in parts of the East Indies, there can be little doubt, but from all appearance and experience this would not be because they had become Americanized but because a permanent Chinese community had been here founded.
[...]This non-assimilability of the Chinese immigration gives a practical importance to all its characteristics, which they would not have if it could be assumed that they would in this country melt away and finally disappear. And that characteristic of the Chinese which is of most practical importance is that they are habituated to a standard of comfort much lower than that of American laborers and much lower even than that of any people whom we receive from Europe. Wages in China touch the absolute minimum that will support life. This at once furnishes a powerful incentive to immigration and enables the Chinese to underbid any competitors in the labor market.
[...]It is from this fact, that the Chinese can, and where necessary to secure employment do, work cheaper than white laborers, that the hostility to their immigration, which shows itself where they have come among us in any numbers, primarily proceeds; and the fundamental difference between those who ask and those who oppose restriction of Chinese immigration will generally be found to be a difference of opinion as to whether cheap labor is an injury or a benefit.''
George also noted that not only were wages depressed by cheap immigrant labor, but he said that the white population of California was less than it would have been had the Chinese laborers not been imported here. In other words, the Chinese actually displaced white laborers. Obviously there are some very close parallels to the illegal Latino immigrants of our day, so what George said also applies to our present situation. George argues against the claims that it was cruel or unethical to exclude Chinese immigrants:
"The ethical considerations which are so often urged against any proposition to shut out Chinese immigration have no force when the real character and effects of that immigration are understood. A conscientious individual may fully recognize his duty toward his neighbor, and yet see that to bring under the same roof with his own family, a family of totally different habits, would be to demoralize instead of elevate, and to produce quarrels and ill will where there should be harmony. And so may one fully imbued with that higher patriotism which regards the whole world as its country and all mankind as brethren, see clearly that such an admixture of peoples as is involved in any considerable Chinese immigration to the United States would be to the degradation of the superior civilization without any commensurate improvement of the lower, and that regarded from the highest standpoint it would tend to check the general progress of the race, not to advance it.
[...]It is not merely the supreme law of self-preservation which justifies us in shutting out a non-assimilable element fraught for us with great social and political dangers, but a regard for the highest interests of the race. It is not that national vanity against which the philosopher should carefully guard, but the obvious fact which it were blindness to ignore, that European civilization as developed on the freer field of the American continent represents the highest advance yet made by humanity, and that upon the great Anglo-Saxon republic of the new world devolves in the era now opening the leadership of the nations.''
Imagine the hue and cry that would result if any public person said similar things in our day, referring to 'the great Anglo-Saxon republic', describing our civilization as representing the 'highest advance yet made by humanity,' or appealing to the 'highest interests of the race.' George argued that the introduction of incompatible and unassimilable elements actually produced 'race prejudices' and social bitterness, and that for that reason, we should avoid introducing these conflicts.
''Whatever will introduce into the life of the republic race prejudices and social bitterness; whatever will reduce wages and degrade labor, and widen the gulf between rich and poor, it is our duty to guard against not merely for the sake of the republic, but for the best interests of mankind.''
George warned against the possible 'Mongolization' of America due to a flood of Chinese labor, and I am sure that were he able to step into a time machine and visit America in 2008, he would warn against the Mexicanization of America.
Henry George was a brilliant and complex man, who is hard to categorize in our terms; in many ways his views seem liberal, and he is obviously a champion of the common man, and the laborer, but yet he was not like today's liberals and leftists.
His Wikipedia entry here details some of his ideas, such as his land tax. He certainly has his admirers among today's leftists because of his condemnation of the means by which many wealthy people obtain their wealth, but as the Wiki notes, his admirers include many of other political leanings.
"His ideas have also received praise from conservative journalists William F. Buckley, Jr. and Frank Chodorov, as well as free-market economists such as Milton Friedman, Fred E. Foldvary and Stephen Moore. The libertarian political and social commentator Albert Jay Nock was also an avowed admirer, and wrote extensively on the Georgist economic and social philosophy.''
I think an honest examination of the kinds of issues George wrote about will lead us away from the cliche 'left-vs.-right' dichotomy today; we can consider the globalists and see that both left and right are acting in collusion. Many of us on the right have learned a knee-jerk defense of capitalism when it is becoming clearer by the day that corporate interests are just as much a part of this undeclared war on the peoples of the West as are the assorted ragtag communists and leftists. I think we will have to look beyond the old categories and examine the ideas of men like Henry George.

Labels: American History, Assimilation, Frontier, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism

At American Thinker, there is a piece on immigration, called The Dangerous Mythology of Immigration, written by Frank Burke.
This is a pretty good article, especially when contrasted with the usual party-politics theme of AT. And the writer actually discusses the negatives of immigration -- immigration per se, not just illegal immigration. I am actually surprised that this appeared at AT.
It's actually not that far off from what we have discussed (I and my readers) in the beginning days of this blog. Back then it seemed that immigration was the focus of many of my pieces, and I was intent on discussing the forbidden topic of legal immigration, and of reminding people that the problem, contrary to the politically correct view, was immigration of all kinds, not just the illegal kind. I was intent on discussing it because it was not being sufficiently discussed, and it was not on the table for discussion in many places.
The subject of legal immigration and its problems did receive considerable attention on VDare and a couple of paleoconservative websites and blogs back when I first started blogging, but even many of the immigration-skeptic blogs and forums were very adamant about legal immigration being absolutely off limits for discussion. Some groups, though their stated mission was to defend our borders and so on, would eject commenters from their forums if the taboo against criticism of legal immigration was violated.
One blog in particular, run by an activist, not only banned violators, but did so in a most public way by openly shaming the violator as a racist, and warning others to avoid offending. There are others of the same type that I am sure you know of.
So it is a sign of progress, I suppose, that AT, which is a very middle-of-the-road site, runs a piece which takes a skeptical tone about legal immigration as well as illegal.
The writer of the piece, Frank Burke, mentions the sentimentalization of immigration which somewhat clouds rational discussion:
''Adding to the difficulty of crafting a just and effective policy is the amount of mythology and emotionalism surrounding the entire immigration question. Some of this is understandable. Immigration is a central facet of the American identity and is reflected in one of our most cherished icons: the Statue of Liberty. Virtually all our family histories boast chapters on immigration.''
Now, stop right there. Not all of us have family histories involving immigration. My ancestors were all colonists; none came to an established country called 'America'. The idea that everybody is descended from immigrants is one of the biggest and least-questioned myths on the subject; I am surprised Mr. Burke did not pick up on this.
I might quibble, too, that the Statue of Liberty is not a cherished icon for me; why should it be? In any case, it was not intended from the beginning to be a symbol of immigration nor was it meant as a sort of pre-modern neon sign announcing ''come on in; we never close'', like a sign on a greasy spoon along the highway.
But other than that, the article makes good points.
Burke mentions the three mistaken beliefs about immigration:
Myths:

"Give me your tired, your poor.."

People come because they want to be Americans

.Everybody wants the same thing

The first one we recognize as Emma Lazarus's overwrought poem on the base of the Statue. But as Burke mentions, America did examine immigrants for things such as communicable diseases and other undesirable conditions. Some people were sent back; there was no ''we take anybody'' policy, as there seems to be now.
The second myth is one we've talked about here a lot. Most people who immigrate today are, in my perhaps cynical opinion, economic migrants or just plain opportunists, who recognize our weakness and come here to get what they can before the carcass is picked clean. Most have no interest in becoming 'Americans' and openly say so. I've heard many immigrants brazenly say that they have a 'right' to come here, because this is a country for everybody, not for Americans.
The third myth, that we all want the same thing, is also pretty obviously false. It is based on an idea that I've tried to discredit here: the idea that all peoples are basically the same, with the same needs (yes, we all need food, water, and oxygen, but beyond that?) and the same desires. We are not all the same under the skin, although this sentimental twaddle lives on.
Burke quotes JFK's words:
In June of 1963, in delivering the commencement address at American University, John F. Kennedy sought to advance a nuclear test ban treaty by equating the attitudes of the United States and the Soviet Union, stating, "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."
Those commonalities, which could also be applied to animal species as well, are not enough to bind us together in any kind of common purpose.
In all, it's a good piece, with some fairly savvy comments. Inevitably, though, there always has to be at least one of these:
''Posted by: Concord Bridge Nov 28, 02:59 PM
Despite the unemployment problem we now have, I have far less concern for immigration than I do for the lack of assimilation. [Full disclosure: my father came to the US as a child.] I welcome anyone who wants to become an American and achieve the American dream of providing for a better future for one's children. Further, I welcome those who are willing to work for what they want and don't look for handouts. They have been the strength of America and there is no reason why they should not be welcome. That being said, I believe in an immigration system that puts America first. That means we do not allow immigration of Muslims and others who seek to do harm to our American way of life. ''
Some of my readers don't accept my belief that recent immigrant origin tends to bias people in favor of new immigrants and immigration in general. Yet I see this kind of comment all the time. It's depressing that some people are so rigid in their defense of immigration, even in the face of all the problems associated with it, because they have so sentimentalized, or personalized, the issue. Any criticism of immigration or immigrants is seen as threatening or hostile, or an outright attack on their own 'right' to be here.
Immigration leads to more immigration, and on and on.
And the commenter's mention of assimilation as being the main criterion for whether immigrants are beneficial is not challenged. This notion of the melting pot and 'assimilation' is another unchallenged popular belief. Many, many Republicans think, still, that oh, say, the Somali who was arrested in the attempted 'Christmas Tree bombing' was just not assimilated enough. Has everybody forgotten the Lackawanna terrorist group who were born and raised in this country? And the '7/7' bombers in the UK? They were "assimilated."
Besides, it is not just a matter of whether people want to assimilate (many don't) but whether they can -- many can't. But it apparently is not politically correct to recognize this.
Why do Republicans, who so often express disdain for much of the politically correct dogma and speech restrictions, fail to see their own political correctness in believing in egalitarian blank-slate-ism?
Maybe, given another 9 or 10 years, Republicans will have moved another inch or two to the right and they will come around to actually rejecting leftism as a whole. Maybe. If we have that long.
One last bit of irony: if you click over to the article, you may see an ad placed right in the midst of the article which shows several 'diverse' individuals and says 'We Are America.'
The ad is "Paid for by the Center for Community Change''
''The Center typically works in urban areas, especially communities of color, and attempts to form autonomous citizen-based groups to work on local issues of concern. It has, for example, had projects in New Orleans, Columbus, Ohio, and Kentucky.
[...]
CCC launched the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) as its immigrant rights project in 2000. FIRM has acted as an advocacy umbrella for many organizations, helped build coalitions, and provided technical assistance. In January 2007, FIRM collected signatures from 250 organizations nationwide supporting comprehensive immigration reform, addressed to majority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid."
As to its funding?
''Center for Community Change is funded in part by individuals who are members of the Democracy Alliance.''
"At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades," The Washington Post reported in August, 2005.
Rob Stein's PowerPoint presentation on how the Right built a strong infrastructure of think tanks, non-profits, non-profit groups, scholarship recipients, academics, lobbyists, right wing activists and the media led to the founding of the Democracy Alliance, and also a separate organization, the New Progressive Coalition founded by entrepreneurs Andy and Deborah Rappaport.
The Democracy Alliance tries to keep a low profile and its wealthy donors prefer anonymity. According to published reports, organizations funded by Democracy Alliance are asked not to reveal the funding.''
So even in the middle of an article examining immigration critically, we get an ad promoting immigration, an ad by one of the left's many 'activist' groups, funded by the usual suspects.
On and on.

Labels: Assimilation, Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Open Borders, Proposition Nation, Universal Nation

During the recent TV news coverage of the California wildfires, I noticed in the many shots of the crowds at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego that the evacuees were mostly white, with a few minorities visible now and again. I found this surprising, given the substantial Latino presence in that part of the country. However, this article, which is via U.S. Asian Wire, partially explains those shots of mostly white people at Qualcomm:
Ethnic Media Cover the Fires
Elena Shore, New America Media
SAN DIEGO�(U.S. ASIAN WIRE)� Ethnic media are on the front lines of the Southern California fires, covering the effects of the devastation on their communities and providing information for evacuees and those who wish to help.
Hispanic residents who needed to evacuate their homes in San Diego had trouble finding information in Spanish about what to do, reports the Spanish-language publication Enlace.
"I saw a huge cloud of black smoke coming toward my house but I didn�t know what to do," Noemi Orozco, a 38-year-old resident of Ramona, told Enlace. As the fires began to spread on Sunday, Orozco said, she turned on her television but none of the Spanish channels interrupted their programming to provide information.
"I watched the English channels but it was hopeless because I can hardly understand it," said another woman. "At 7:00 p.m., the police came and one spoke Spanish, telling me to leave my apartment because of the approaching danger."
Vianei Salmeron scanned Spanish radio stations Sunday evening for news about the fire, and didn�t find anything, Enlace reports.
On Monday, Spanish television stations began interrupting their regular programming to give the community information about the fire.
Many undocumented immigrants affected by the fires have been afraid to come forward to seek help, Hispanic media report.
The farm workers who live in the open air in the McGonigle Canyon, according to Enlace, are among the most destitute residents affected by the fires.
While some left the area, many of these "invisible victims" remain in the canyons, either because they do not want to or can�t leave.
"We�ve been telling them that they are in an evacuation zone but they don�t want to move because they have all their stuff in the hills and because they�re afraid of the police and the people," Juan Ramon, an activist with the Indigenous Front of Binational Organizations, told the newspaper.
[...]
Despite being told to go to Qualcomm Stadium, the majority of Vietnamese residents forced to evacuate fled to their friends' and relatives' homes, CaliToday newspaper reports. Vietnamese families in northern San Diego were surprised when officials knocked on their doors and told them to leave. Several have returned to their own homes but were told to stay on alert if the fires were to change direction.
[...]
More than 2,000 Koreans living in the affected areas have fled to local Korean churches.
Instead of checking into evacuation shelters operated by authorities, about 300 Koreans have been staying at the Calvary Korean Presbyterian Church in Linda Vista since Monday night. Korean Hope Church of San Diego and Hanbit Church, both located near San Diego�s Koreatown that sprawls along Convoy Street, each provided shelter to about 100 people.
[...]
"People feel more comfortable when they band together with the same race, and some decided to come to church because the shelters they had gone to were crowded," said Young Sung Joo, managing editor of Korea Daily's San Diego bureau.''
The above-excerpted piece was from the New America Media, which is a sort of 'diversity' media outlet, focusing on, well, 'diverse' groups of people, which by popular understanding, is a diversity that excludes whitebread types.
The article should not have surprised anyone; the bit about the Hispanic woman searching the Spanish-language TV stations in vain for news of the fire situation was what I would expect. We all know of many examples of Latinos who live in this country for decades and never become fluent in English, relying only on 'their' media, which keeps them in a very insular little world.
The predictable line, about the Hispanics being 'afraid of the police and the people' is frustrating, because somehow they seem to believe Americans are evil racists who will do them harm, or is this merely spin from the leftist media? If it is true, (and I don't see much evidence of fear among the illegals in my neck of the woods) then the left has much to answer for, because they constantly harp on the idea of 'racism' and 'xenophobia' which is slanderous to Americans, and which leads to more suspicion and hostility, provoking anti-white racism.
Many of the other ethnic groups mentioned above are very isolated. In most West Coast cities there are Korean enclaves, with Korean churches, Korean strip malls devoted only to goods or services to the 'Korean community'. There are also Korean-language TV channels or programming blocks on local stations.
Two ethnic groups which might not experience as much linguistic isolation in this country are the Filipino immigrants and those from India, because of the widespread use of English in those countries. Still there is a degree of insularity there too, despite the familiarity with English.
But the tendency of all these groups to cling together in this country doesn't bode well for the future. Personally I believe that it is human nature for people to gravitate to their own, even those of us who are fascinated with other cultures have a degree of comfort with those most like ourselves. In light of that fact, expecting that alien groups will assimilate and 'integrate' is asking too much, especially when the cultural and genetic differences between us militate against it. Some groups, I believe, are too intrinsically unlike us to ever really become part of the existing American culture, and many of today's immigrants come from cultures and countries that are hostile to us or have existing grievances against us. This also makes 'assimilation' an unlikely prospect. And of course it's a given that the more immigrants from a country, the more they will form enclaves and simply reproduce their own countries within our cities and towns, islands of foreign culture in our midst.
The fact that there are so many people who cannot speak the common language of this country is a problem when it comes to public safety, as the story of the Latina woman who was unable to hear the news in her language. Had it not been for the firefighter who spoke Spanish, she may have stayed behind and perished in the fire. There are countless other stories like this, where a lack of English skills leads to dangerous situations both for the immigrant and for the American who may have to risk his life or lose his life in rescuing non-English speakers who are in harm's way.
But most of all, the overall picture shown in the article is one of a balkanizing America, many countries within one. In a crisis such as a natural disaster, or a terror attack, how can there be the kind of coordination and unity that is needed to preserve order, or to rescue those in need, or to cooperate for the common good? Or will there even be any concept of the 'common good' in a disaster involving such a diverse area?
From what I have read of the Qualcomm situation in San Diego, apart from the problems caused by the illegals hauling away a few truckloads of emergency provisions, things went fairly smoothly; people were civil and patient and behaved in a civilized way, for the most part. This is reflective of the culture of the people involved, and it was made possible by the fact that there was a common standard of behavior and an ideal of mutual cooperation. When a disaster happens in a city made up of a number of different enclaves, and there is no common understanding, we can hardly expect order and civility to prevail. When people such as those illegals act against the common good in favor of their own tribe or clan, this is destructive to the public good. Yet the majority white population is always expected to behave in a more altruistic fashion, thinking of the common welfare, while each ethnic group is given license to look out only for their own tribe. There is an asymmetry here, an imbalance.
But not only in emergency situations are commonalities are needed to make things work, but in everyday life. It's the little rules of human interaction in a culture that act as a social lubricant to minimize friction and misunderstanding. We take small things for granted, such as body language, little niceties of conversation, eye contact, small acts of courtesy, all of which are the things that enable us to get along and to function as a society. The more 'diversity' we have in our midst, the more communication breaks down, and the English language is not all that is needed for good communication; it involves the non-verbal cues and behaviors and signals, too. And when it comes to those from other cultures, especially those widely separated from our own, the greater the potential for misunderstanding and actual conflict, especially when there is an already-existing layer of suspicion and 'distance' between peoples.
Note: after I began this post, I read Rick Darby's latest blog entry on his recent visit to California, and it seems to tie in with the story behind this article. So I recommend that you read Rick's account of his recent experiences in California, as always, very much worth reading.

Labels: Assimilation, Diversity, Ethnic Division, Ethnocentrism, Political Correctness

I still can't get over this situation: the town of Mattawa, Washington, which is said to be no less than 93 percent Hispanic, is now being forced by the DOJ to provide city services in Spanish. This is for the sake of the 8 in 10 residents whose English is inadequate.
I posted a link to the Seattle Times article on this over at the Forum, and it indicated that the town has grown, in the last 20 years, from a population of about 300 to its current total of 3200. And from all appearances, virtually all of this explosive growth is due to immigration.
I would bet, too, that probably close to 100 percent of the immigration is illegal.
Think about those numbers, and also contemplate the fact that Washington state is not exactly a border state -- well, not a Mexican border state. Occasionally on various forums there is discussion of the rural Northwest being a good place to go to escape the immigrant tidal wave. Can I assume that we are all now disabused of that overoptimistic idea? The Northwest is not immune from the diversity epidemic, and what illegal immigration fails to do, the government will 'fix' by dropping a few thousand 'refugees' down here and there.
The VDare piece linked above emphasizes the necessity of assimilation; once I would have agreed without thinking. Yes, speak our language and defer to our ways of doing things once here in our country. But is assimilation a cure-all? No. Some immigrants, as I've emphasized before have assimilated outwardly, speaking English and participating in our mass culture -- but have nonetheless kept their old allegiances and identifications, and have not grown to be fully American.
I also question whether all CAN assimilate to our ways. I believe the more distant from us ethnically, the less likely to be able to truly assimilate. Culture is part of our genetics; it can't be changed like a suit of clothes as the pollyannas believe. And many, if not most, of today's immigrants have no wish to assimilate and be like us.
The other obvious issue is that assimilation is simply not workable or possible when we have such overwhelming numbers of immigrants from everywhere being deposited on our doorsteps. Assimilation only worked in the past because the numbers of immigrants were more manageable, and because we had a system which required that immigrants learn our language and conform to our ways. Nowadays, the system thwarts the process: with the emphasis on 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism', and aided by our lack of cultural pride and confidence, assimilation is impossible .
And in a way, I think this is good. Separation of incompatible groups of people is sometimes the only workable solution, contrary to our official government policy of throwing us all together in The Big Blender.
Assimilation, I think, is a false hope; as an ideal, it only delays our day of reckoning. It gives us the illusion that we can all coexist in this ever-more-confused 'nation of immigrants', and that we can all 'get along.'
Surely people will one day wake up and see that assimilation is really not possible in our present situation. In fact, if any assimilating is done, it will be our assimilation to the invaders' culture.
The remaining non-Hispanic people in Mattawa, if there are any, will either have to Hispanicize (via intermarriage, or simply conforming to Hispanic culture) or leave. Mattawa may be the future for a lot of us.

Labels: American Culture, Assimilation, Bilingualism, Freedom Of Association, Illegal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Open Borders