0 comment Tuesday, October 21, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Thursday, August 28, 2014 | admin
Over at the Forum, commenter cabbageroll has started a topic: Freedom and Separatism.
She asks:
''Does "Inherent Human Freedom" allow people to declare independence/secede from their countries?''
This has bearing on a lot of the issues we have discussed here, like various independence movements in Europe as well as with the War Between the States aka the War of Secession or the 'Civil War' in this country. It's a subject that seems to be more relevant than ever these days. So I hope some of you will click over to the Forum and add your two cents to the discussion.
She asks:
''Does "Inherent Human Freedom" allow people to declare independence/secede from their countries?''
This has bearing on a lot of the issues we have discussed here, like various independence movements in Europe as well as with the War Between the States aka the War of Secession or the 'Civil War' in this country. It's a subject that seems to be more relevant than ever these days. So I hope some of you will click over to the Forum and add your two cents to the discussion.
Labels: Balkanization, Freedom Of Association, Nationalism, Secession, Self-Determination
0 comment Saturday, August 16, 2014 | admin
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the
principle of free thought�not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. .
. . We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe. '' -Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
My regular readers may want to skip this entry; it's meant for the self-righteous visitors who felt themselves to be 'victimized' or offended by words I wrote here the other day. This is meant for those who think that I and those who think as I do are their personal enemies. So please, indulge me in a little venting.
I want to clarify, first, what I said in the blog entry about Richard Nixon's politically incorrect conversations, which have caused some stir recently. In regard to abortion, I do not support abortion, at all. I was not suggesting I agreed with Nixon's views on the appropriateness of abortion in certain situations.
I did say that his politically incorrect views regarding interracial unions represented the prevailing majority opinion at the time he expressed them. And this is factually true. In fact, those views seem to be the prevailing consensus now, at least in practice, as statistics show that even in this politically correct, ''race-transcending'', colorblind age, the vast majority of people marry within their race.
That's fact, which can be supported by statistics, as well as by impartial observation of real life.
Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America�s 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970.''
In other words, about 93 percent of America's married couples are of the same race. This indicates that preference for one's own race in marriage is still the norm, still the preference of the great majority.
That this fact bothers some people, or hurts their feelings, is not the issue, and it is certainly not my fault, much less my problem. The facts are what they are. Human beings are what they are, and racial cohesion (as well as racial loyalty, until recently) are simply intrinsic to human nature.
The fact that such a substantial majority of people marry those of their own race says something, especially in the face of a half-century or so of nonstop propaganda meant to break down racial consciousness and intra-racial loyalty and cohesion.
My comments about the majority opinion was not meant to express approval of abortion in whatever circumstance, nor to claim that the majority of Americans believed abortion permissible, then or now. My comment was merely to indicate that today's politically correct received opinions on race were not popular opinions back then. And that's fact, even though some like to call facts they dislike ''hate''.
What is really at issue here is not facts, but 'feelings'. A commenter bemoaned that there is 'so much evil in the world', meaning that certain politically incorrect ideas are not merely mistaken or wrong, but ''evil'', and possibly a threat or a danger to others. And not only that, but I myself and perhaps the people who agree with me are 'evil' as individuals. Collectively, ''evil'' people with ''evil'' ideas constitute a dangerous group to the emotional forces of the left.
My recent entries on the subject of 'hate and extremism' touched on that idea: the attempt to make thought-criminals of all those who disagree with the PC regime which dominates all thought and discourse in public. It does not matter to the fearmongers on the left that these 'extremist' opinons are nothing more than your parents' or grandparents' ideas, and certainly the ideas of our Founding Fathers and past generations in general.
Suddenly, traditional, widely-held, time-honored ideas are 'evil.' What kind of mind looks at their own history and their own people, seeing only 'evil' and threats lurking around every corner?
Ultimately, I've found that it's a waste of time and breath to argue with the indoctrinated and the PC pharisees of the left, most especially where racial matters are concerned. I believe I've said that one in 1,000 liberals might be willing to be honest and listen to the other side. I take that back. I now think it's more like 1 in 10,000 or in 100,000.
For liberals, it's all about their feelings, and if you hurt their feelings with an idea or opinion, you are evil and should be silenced, or rounded up, as Bonnie Erbe and her ilk propose.
I've had people on the Internet literally wish me dead because of my opinions. How's that ''stop the hate'' thing going for you liberals? It looks to me as though the hate is mostly one-way, coming from your side towards ours.
Liberals, and all politically correct censors and self-designated vigilantes, remove the plank from your own eye first, rather than searching for the mote in your conservative brother's eye.
Here's an idea: try arguing ideas or facts when you disagree with someone. Implying that your interlocutor is 'evil' because you disagree with his ideas is immature, childish, and unworthy of a thinking adult. I will not engage in any kind of debate with those who attack my character because they hate my ideas, and therefore hate me.
Should it not be possible for a grown-up to dislike someone's ideas or opinions without calling that person 'evil'?
Please know that your ideas are as odious to me as mine seem to be to you, the difference between us being that I do not troll liberal/leftist/minority blogs looking for a fight, or for a chance to verbally assail those I differ with. Nor do I try to silence them, as they would love to silence those to their right.
One more thing which needs to be said: liberals tend to loathe conservatives and particularly Christians because they think Christians ''want to impose their morality'' on everyone. Hello? All that liberals do involves ''imposing their morality'' on the rest of us. A prime example is the subject at hand, the subject that so offended my delicate commenter yesterday: race and freedom of association. Because liberals deem it a good and moral and high-minded and 'enlightened' thing to pretend that race does not exist, or to condescend to associate with people of differing races, nothing will do but to force everybody to partake in that association. No one is to be allowed to refrain from associating with others, and no one is to be allowed to be left alone. The government must, by use of force and coercion, compel association with all and sundry, regardless of the wishes of those involved.
What on earth is this but imposing your morality on someone else?
I mean, it's nice for you that you have this enlightened 'egalitarian' religious faith, which enjoins you to pretend there is no such thing as race, ethnicity, or gender, but must you impose that religion or ideology on me and mine? What gives you that right? And under what Constitutional principle is the government to force people to associate with any given group, or to forbid people to assemble with others of their free choosing?
Even if you find some Constitutional justification for this, it is not ethical or moral.
Liberals relish calling conservatives ''judgmental'', and yet you liberals reserve all judgment to yourselves, judging and condemning willy-nilly, as if you are the voice of God himself. And isn't it you who claim that there are no moral absolutes? Then your absolutism about equality is meaningless and arbitrary. If there are no absolutes, then my views are just as valid and just as moral as yours are.
Your self-righteous, often self-pitying moralizing has no legitimacy, especially coming from those who say everything is relative, there are no absolutes.
The kinds of comments I get from the left, from their various offended'' victim-clients, and from the 'mainstream respectable conservatives' only serve to convince me that this country cannot endure under one government; we are far too polarized, not only along racial, ethnic, and religious lines, but also across philosophical and ethical lines. If my good (racial loyalty, love for my own and my fathers) is someone else's ''evil'', then what hope is there of sustaining such a society?
principle of free thought�not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. .
. . We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe. '' -Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
My regular readers may want to skip this entry; it's meant for the self-righteous visitors who felt themselves to be 'victimized' or offended by words I wrote here the other day. This is meant for those who think that I and those who think as I do are their personal enemies. So please, indulge me in a little venting.
I want to clarify, first, what I said in the blog entry about Richard Nixon's politically incorrect conversations, which have caused some stir recently. In regard to abortion, I do not support abortion, at all. I was not suggesting I agreed with Nixon's views on the appropriateness of abortion in certain situations.
I did say that his politically incorrect views regarding interracial unions represented the prevailing majority opinion at the time he expressed them. And this is factually true. In fact, those views seem to be the prevailing consensus now, at least in practice, as statistics show that even in this politically correct, ''race-transcending'', colorblind age, the vast majority of people marry within their race.
That's fact, which can be supported by statistics, as well as by impartial observation of real life.
Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America�s 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970.''
In other words, about 93 percent of America's married couples are of the same race. This indicates that preference for one's own race in marriage is still the norm, still the preference of the great majority.
That this fact bothers some people, or hurts their feelings, is not the issue, and it is certainly not my fault, much less my problem. The facts are what they are. Human beings are what they are, and racial cohesion (as well as racial loyalty, until recently) are simply intrinsic to human nature.
The fact that such a substantial majority of people marry those of their own race says something, especially in the face of a half-century or so of nonstop propaganda meant to break down racial consciousness and intra-racial loyalty and cohesion.
My comments about the majority opinion was not meant to express approval of abortion in whatever circumstance, nor to claim that the majority of Americans believed abortion permissible, then or now. My comment was merely to indicate that today's politically correct received opinions on race were not popular opinions back then. And that's fact, even though some like to call facts they dislike ''hate''.
What is really at issue here is not facts, but 'feelings'. A commenter bemoaned that there is 'so much evil in the world', meaning that certain politically incorrect ideas are not merely mistaken or wrong, but ''evil'', and possibly a threat or a danger to others. And not only that, but I myself and perhaps the people who agree with me are 'evil' as individuals. Collectively, ''evil'' people with ''evil'' ideas constitute a dangerous group to the emotional forces of the left.
My recent entries on the subject of 'hate and extremism' touched on that idea: the attempt to make thought-criminals of all those who disagree with the PC regime which dominates all thought and discourse in public. It does not matter to the fearmongers on the left that these 'extremist' opinons are nothing more than your parents' or grandparents' ideas, and certainly the ideas of our Founding Fathers and past generations in general.
Suddenly, traditional, widely-held, time-honored ideas are 'evil.' What kind of mind looks at their own history and their own people, seeing only 'evil' and threats lurking around every corner?
Ultimately, I've found that it's a waste of time and breath to argue with the indoctrinated and the PC pharisees of the left, most especially where racial matters are concerned. I believe I've said that one in 1,000 liberals might be willing to be honest and listen to the other side. I take that back. I now think it's more like 1 in 10,000 or in 100,000.
For liberals, it's all about their feelings, and if you hurt their feelings with an idea or opinion, you are evil and should be silenced, or rounded up, as Bonnie Erbe and her ilk propose.
I've had people on the Internet literally wish me dead because of my opinions. How's that ''stop the hate'' thing going for you liberals? It looks to me as though the hate is mostly one-way, coming from your side towards ours.
Liberals, and all politically correct censors and self-designated vigilantes, remove the plank from your own eye first, rather than searching for the mote in your conservative brother's eye.
Here's an idea: try arguing ideas or facts when you disagree with someone. Implying that your interlocutor is 'evil' because you disagree with his ideas is immature, childish, and unworthy of a thinking adult. I will not engage in any kind of debate with those who attack my character because they hate my ideas, and therefore hate me.
Should it not be possible for a grown-up to dislike someone's ideas or opinions without calling that person 'evil'?
Please know that your ideas are as odious to me as mine seem to be to you, the difference between us being that I do not troll liberal/leftist/minority blogs looking for a fight, or for a chance to verbally assail those I differ with. Nor do I try to silence them, as they would love to silence those to their right.
One more thing which needs to be said: liberals tend to loathe conservatives and particularly Christians because they think Christians ''want to impose their morality'' on everyone. Hello? All that liberals do involves ''imposing their morality'' on the rest of us. A prime example is the subject at hand, the subject that so offended my delicate commenter yesterday: race and freedom of association. Because liberals deem it a good and moral and high-minded and 'enlightened' thing to pretend that race does not exist, or to condescend to associate with people of differing races, nothing will do but to force everybody to partake in that association. No one is to be allowed to refrain from associating with others, and no one is to be allowed to be left alone. The government must, by use of force and coercion, compel association with all and sundry, regardless of the wishes of those involved.
What on earth is this but imposing your morality on someone else?
I mean, it's nice for you that you have this enlightened 'egalitarian' religious faith, which enjoins you to pretend there is no such thing as race, ethnicity, or gender, but must you impose that religion or ideology on me and mine? What gives you that right? And under what Constitutional principle is the government to force people to associate with any given group, or to forbid people to assemble with others of their free choosing?
Even if you find some Constitutional justification for this, it is not ethical or moral.
Liberals relish calling conservatives ''judgmental'', and yet you liberals reserve all judgment to yourselves, judging and condemning willy-nilly, as if you are the voice of God himself. And isn't it you who claim that there are no moral absolutes? Then your absolutism about equality is meaningless and arbitrary. If there are no absolutes, then my views are just as valid and just as moral as yours are.
Your self-righteous, often self-pitying moralizing has no legitimacy, especially coming from those who say everything is relative, there are no absolutes.
The kinds of comments I get from the left, from their various offended'' victim-clients, and from the 'mainstream respectable conservatives' only serve to convince me that this country cannot endure under one government; we are far too polarized, not only along racial, ethnic, and religious lines, but also across philosophical and ethical lines. If my good (racial loyalty, love for my own and my fathers) is someone else's ''evil'', then what hope is there of sustaining such a society?
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Freedom Of Association, Leftism, Leftist Hypocrisy, Political Correctness, Racial Division, Racial Guilt
0 comment Wednesday, June 18, 2014 | admin
Westchester Agrees to Add Housing in Desegregation Pact
From the article:
Residential segregation underlies virtually every racial disparity in America, from education to jobs to the delivery of health care," said Mr. Gurian.''
Residential segregation is behind every racial disparity? What does that mean? Is Mr. Gurian, who is executive director of 'the Anti-Discrimination Center', saying that nonwhites must live among Whites, being in constant proximity to them, in order to be 'equal' in education, jobs or healthcare? That is about all I can make of his words. So he is indicating, as I perceive it, that nonwhites are not self-sufficient, able to accomplish 'equality' on their own, and that their being amongst White people is essential to their prospering in any way?
I would bet Mr. Gurian does not mean that as it sounds. He is either one of those ideological, doctrinaire liberals who really believes that Whites are selfishly denying nonwhites their ''piece of the pie'' by not 'allowing' them to inhabit historically White areas, or he doesn't really believe the egalitarian claptrap, and knows that the only earthly way to remove those pesky 'racial disparities' is by dragging everybody's standards down to the lowest common denominator. That was the way it usually worked in the old Communist countries; instead of 'wealth' being spread to everyone, poverty was made more inclusive. Almost everybody but the 'party elites' lived in cramped, dismal housing and had minimal creature comforts. That was 'equality'. So when the Gurians of the world finish with America, all neighborhoods will be grimly equal, with nobody living in middle-class 'luxury', and everybody living in shared squalor.
There is no way to bring everybody up to the higher level; instead, everybody will be dragged down, and the envious will have had their pyrrhic victory. Nobody will be 'better' than anybody else; misery will have its desired company, and the envious will enjoy their Schadenfreude at seeing Whitey brought down to their level.
Quite apart from the futility of social engineering efforts like this, and its impracticability, and its cost in dollars and cents, it's just simply wrong. It's wrong from a constitutional point of view; our government was not designed to do this. The United States government (whew, I almost slipped and said ''our'' government again!) has no legal right to meddle in mandating where people live, and in forcing taxpayers to fund the relocation of the have-nots to live (according to some imaginary 'right') among the haves.
The government is destroying natural freedom of association. You and I will no longer be allowed, if this continues, to live among people with whom we are comfortable, with whom we share certain commonalities -- of income level, religion, lifestyle, race/ethnicity, habits, or whatever. It will all be decided for us by Big Mommy Government, and it will be ensured by force.
The agreement, if ratified by the county�s Board of Legislators, would settle a lawsuit filed by an antidiscrimination group and could become a template for increased scrutiny of local governments� housing policies by the Obama administration.
"This is consistent with the president�s desire to see a fully integrated society," said Ron Sims, the deputy secretary of housing and urban development, which helped broker the settlement along with the Justice Department. "Until now, we tended to lay dormant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people�s feet to the fire."
The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million of its own money, in addition to other funds, to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black residents constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The 120 other spaces must meet different criteria for cost and ethnic concentration.
The county, one of the nation�s wealthiest suburbs, has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing.''
This kind of government coercion is yet another means by which communities consisting mostly of White people will be forcibly broken up, and ''diversity'' imposed by government edict.
Now, 50 years ago, this kind of ''integration'' could not be forced on people if only because blacks were only 10-11 percent of the population, and they obviously could not be in every community.
I've noticed that many young diversity-minded people are alarmed at seeing pictures of White communities from 40 or 50 years ago, saying ''where are the African-Americans and the Hispanics?' Where, indeed. Now, however, our resourceful elites have solved that vexing problem. Knowing that certain neighborhoods and towns could not be properly ''integrated'' since nonwhites were spread too thin, they thoughtfully, in 1965, passed a law to ensure that no neighborhood need ever be color-deprived. The Hart-Celler Act, which favored Third World immigration and discouraged European immigration, began to import millions of people to 'integrate' America properly. Now, all these years later, there is still a color shortage, apparently, as millions more are sought to come and 'integrate' us further. Refugees help increase the numbers, since immigration is not fast-and-furious enough for our rulers.
Some of us have noticed that refugees are now very consciously placed in small, mostly White towns and in states with a diversity 'deficiency.' Do the powers that be think we are so stupid as not to notice this pattern, and to divine the reasoning behind it?
I posted an article a while back about the plans to bulldoze certain areas and to relocate people elsewhere, and remarked that I was certain it was more social engineering, more meddling. The New York Times article describes the other part of the plan. Places like Westchester (and maybe your town) will be the recipient areas.
Note: Old Atlantic has blogged about this, here.
From the article:
Residential segregation underlies virtually every racial disparity in America, from education to jobs to the delivery of health care," said Mr. Gurian.''
Residential segregation is behind every racial disparity? What does that mean? Is Mr. Gurian, who is executive director of 'the Anti-Discrimination Center', saying that nonwhites must live among Whites, being in constant proximity to them, in order to be 'equal' in education, jobs or healthcare? That is about all I can make of his words. So he is indicating, as I perceive it, that nonwhites are not self-sufficient, able to accomplish 'equality' on their own, and that their being amongst White people is essential to their prospering in any way?
I would bet Mr. Gurian does not mean that as it sounds. He is either one of those ideological, doctrinaire liberals who really believes that Whites are selfishly denying nonwhites their ''piece of the pie'' by not 'allowing' them to inhabit historically White areas, or he doesn't really believe the egalitarian claptrap, and knows that the only earthly way to remove those pesky 'racial disparities' is by dragging everybody's standards down to the lowest common denominator. That was the way it usually worked in the old Communist countries; instead of 'wealth' being spread to everyone, poverty was made more inclusive. Almost everybody but the 'party elites' lived in cramped, dismal housing and had minimal creature comforts. That was 'equality'. So when the Gurians of the world finish with America, all neighborhoods will be grimly equal, with nobody living in middle-class 'luxury', and everybody living in shared squalor.
There is no way to bring everybody up to the higher level; instead, everybody will be dragged down, and the envious will have had their pyrrhic victory. Nobody will be 'better' than anybody else; misery will have its desired company, and the envious will enjoy their Schadenfreude at seeing Whitey brought down to their level.
Quite apart from the futility of social engineering efforts like this, and its impracticability, and its cost in dollars and cents, it's just simply wrong. It's wrong from a constitutional point of view; our government was not designed to do this. The United States government (whew, I almost slipped and said ''our'' government again!) has no legal right to meddle in mandating where people live, and in forcing taxpayers to fund the relocation of the have-nots to live (according to some imaginary 'right') among the haves.
The government is destroying natural freedom of association. You and I will no longer be allowed, if this continues, to live among people with whom we are comfortable, with whom we share certain commonalities -- of income level, religion, lifestyle, race/ethnicity, habits, or whatever. It will all be decided for us by Big Mommy Government, and it will be ensured by force.
The agreement, if ratified by the county�s Board of Legislators, would settle a lawsuit filed by an antidiscrimination group and could become a template for increased scrutiny of local governments� housing policies by the Obama administration.
"This is consistent with the president�s desire to see a fully integrated society," said Ron Sims, the deputy secretary of housing and urban development, which helped broker the settlement along with the Justice Department. "Until now, we tended to lay dormant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people�s feet to the fire."
The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million of its own money, in addition to other funds, to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black residents constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The 120 other spaces must meet different criteria for cost and ethnic concentration.
The county, one of the nation�s wealthiest suburbs, has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing.''
This kind of government coercion is yet another means by which communities consisting mostly of White people will be forcibly broken up, and ''diversity'' imposed by government edict.
Now, 50 years ago, this kind of ''integration'' could not be forced on people if only because blacks were only 10-11 percent of the population, and they obviously could not be in every community.
I've noticed that many young diversity-minded people are alarmed at seeing pictures of White communities from 40 or 50 years ago, saying ''where are the African-Americans and the Hispanics?' Where, indeed. Now, however, our resourceful elites have solved that vexing problem. Knowing that certain neighborhoods and towns could not be properly ''integrated'' since nonwhites were spread too thin, they thoughtfully, in 1965, passed a law to ensure that no neighborhood need ever be color-deprived. The Hart-Celler Act, which favored Third World immigration and discouraged European immigration, began to import millions of people to 'integrate' America properly. Now, all these years later, there is still a color shortage, apparently, as millions more are sought to come and 'integrate' us further. Refugees help increase the numbers, since immigration is not fast-and-furious enough for our rulers.
Some of us have noticed that refugees are now very consciously placed in small, mostly White towns and in states with a diversity 'deficiency.' Do the powers that be think we are so stupid as not to notice this pattern, and to divine the reasoning behind it?
I posted an article a while back about the plans to bulldoze certain areas and to relocate people elsewhere, and remarked that I was certain it was more social engineering, more meddling. The New York Times article describes the other part of the plan. Places like Westchester (and maybe your town) will be the recipient areas.
Note: Old Atlantic has blogged about this, here.
Labels: Big Government, Celebrate Diversity, Cultural Marxism, Diversity, Egalitarianism, Freedom Of Association, Inequality, Integration, Liberalism, Social Engineering
0 comment Sunday, June 8, 2014 | admin
The response continues around the blogosphere to Eric Holder's 'nation of cowards' gauntlet.
In Selwyn Duke's response, he describes the campaign of vilification of Whites, for which he uses the term 'caucophobia', and which he describes as having been mainstreamed. And he warns of consequences:
What does history teach about the plight of consistently scapegoated and dehumanized groups? It's that they almost invariably end up suffering persecution. And given that current demographic trends indicate whites will becomes a minority in America during the lifetimes of many reading this, and given that even majorities sometimes are tyrannized -- as Sunnis' domination of Shiites under Saddam Hussein and the Spartans' enslavement of the Helots proved -- it's foolishness to dismiss the peril posed by mainstreaming caucaphobia.''
Here, Heather MacDonald takes a different approach, with which I find little in common. I suppose because of her libertarianism, she seems to take a somewhat politically correct approach, and seems to agree with those who think America bears substantial guilt for past sins against minorities. The approach seems to appeal for mercy on the grounds that we are not quite so racist now as we used to be, and deserve credit for amending our ways somewhat:
But if Attorney General Holder is really sincere about wanting a "frank" conversation about race, he should put the following items on the agenda:
The American electorate. The country just elected its first black president. And it actually didn�t talk a lot about Barack Obama�s race during the election, thank heavens, because most Americans were more interested in the candidate�s ideas than in his skin color. There were undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people who wouldn�t vote for Obama because of his race. I would guess that their average age was 75. There is no question that a great many geriatric Americans continue to harbor the rankest racism for blacks, but guess what? They�re not going to be around for much longer. Young people growing up in the last 30 years live on a different planet when it comes to racial attitudes�until the educrats start playing with their minds.''
Young people who have grown up in the last 30 years do truly live on a different planet in regard to race; many if not most live on a planet which has a racial hierarchy, but it is the reverse of the racial order of their supposedly 'rank racist' geriatric elders. Many of these young people who she describes, basically, as the moral betters of their elders, dwell a planet where rap and hiphop are the highest art form, and blacks are put on a pedestal, and where interracial relationships are not only acceptable but considered superior in some circles.
(Disclaimer: I trust my younger readers know that I don't include them in the stereotype. Every generalization admits of exceptions.)
MacDonald continues:
We might also talk about those legions of older, black Americans who have held on to their love of country and belief in its ideals, despite having been subjected to America at its worst. I have had the privilege to speak to many such individuals for my work, and they have broken my heart with their dignity and nobility. Rather than reflexively consulting professional race activists for insights into race in America, the media and politicians might for once seek some voices that contradict the mandatory "angry black male" trope.''
'America at its worst'? I can't believe that this article was mostly lauded over at AmRen. America 'at its worst' is the America of today, as far as I'm concerned. But then again I am probably of that generation that she considers to be 'rank racists.'
She continues:
When communities resist an influx of Section 8 housing-voucher holders from the inner city, say, they are reacting overwhelmingly to behavior. Skin color is a proxy for that behavior. If inner-city blacks behaved like Asians�cramming as much knowledge into their kids as they can possibly fit into their skulls�the lingering wariness towards lower-income blacks that many Americans unquestionably harbor would disappear. Are there irredeemable racists among Americans? To be sure. They come in all colors, and we should deplore all of them. But the issue of race in the United States is more complex than polite company is usually allowed to express. If Eric Holder wants to crank up our racial preoccupations even further, let him at least do so with a full airing of the facts.''
Ultimately, then, she is one of those who thinks all racial differences are attributable to environment and 'nurture', and that if we merely educated minorities better, all races could achieve equally. Such is the libertarian 'see no race' approach.
Yes, I know a few libertarians are more realistic, but the majority are race-deniers. That, for me, was Ron Paul's biggest drawback.
Coming from a very different (and much more realistic) perspective is David Yeagley. His piece is much more blunt, free of the usual PC disclaimers or cant, but here I have to disagree with him as to the cause of our predicament.
Now. The only question is, Whose fault it all this? Frankly, it probably isn�t the fault of black people. It is the fault of their "handlers," or, "masters," the Oedipal white WASPS in power. And no, don�t blame the Jews. They�re a tiny minority. Blame white people�those in power. Inherited power. Deep power.''
I suppose I am fighting a losing battle in trying to rebut this 'WASPs did it' canard. I would like specifics, please. Who are these 'Oedipal white WASPs in power'? Where are they? Who exactly holds the real power in our country, or in the West? How many of them are WASPs of old stock? Very few, to my knowledge. I've posted about that a number of times. WASPs have long since been demoted from power, having been displaced by a coalition mostly of Ellis Islanders and other latecomers (e.g. George Soros, et al). Rich WASPs just don't have much influence or clout, and many old-line wealthy families of WASP origin have long since lost their WASP character and bloodlines. It isn't like the old days, when people in the Social Register were mostly WASP and only intermarried among themselves. The lines are blurred; the elites are cosmopolitans, not WASPs, not even in a cultural sense.
And on a discussion thread, Dr. Yeagley repeats this same thing, in response to a commenter:
PearlGirl, I know there are many suggestions about why these race-based social conditions have come about. I do blame the heirs of the Pilgrims, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant descendents. They have the power and the money. I�ve called it a cultural Freudian Oedipal complex, a latent homosexual aggression. It is whites denigrating whites.''
PearlGirl answers:
Dr. Yeagley - WASPS HAD the power and money. They�ve forgotten who they are,and allowed power and wealth to slip away. I speak AS an actual WASP��.I should look up this quote - but I think it�s salient - an Asian leader just observed that ",,,in a multicultural country, people vote according to Race". The last national "election" we�ve endured definitely proves that thesis. Are you familiar with the work of Arthur Kemp? He posits that when a homogenous population allows "The Other" in - the original population fades, and vanishes,due to miscegenation, and the original social order collapses. There are plenty of examples of this phenomena, through the whole of Human history. Now - your position has merit, but it�s a part of the whole picture. We must always, in any event, ask fearlessly "Why?" We MUST bother to ask, and determine causation. Always. You can�t cure a disease, if you don�t know the cause.''
Thanks to PearlGirl, whoever she is. She says what I've said before: in allowing the 'tired and poor' of first, Eastern and Southern Europe, and then farther-flung places, to settle here, the result was an accelerated weakening of our country, as the racial/ethnic/religious bonds were weakened. It's true that many Anglo-Saxon New England liberals were bleeding-hearts who promoted the wave of Ellis Island immigration which was really the beginning of 'diversity' and the 'melting pot' debacle for us, but there were also New England Yankees who opposed that, and as proof of that, we see how the greatest resentment of the Ellis Islanders is reserved for the hated WASPs who were supposedly 'unwelcoming' and 'bigoted' towards the Ellis Islanders. Their descendants carry grudges many generations later. In fact, I would say they started the trend of victimology, of ethnic grudges and vendettas: ''your ancestors wanted to exclude my ancestors, so you owe me' morphed into 'your ancestors enslaved mine, so you owe me.' It's a continuous line of descent. The Ellis Islanders often sympathize with today's immigrants, and often side with blacks and minorities generally.
And who were the main perpetrators of the ill-omened 1965 Hart-Celler Act?
I've linked favorably to Dr. Yeagley, but I think he is mistaken on this point, and yet he is not alone in making this accusation against WASPs.
It's a very popular one even among 'race realists' and ethnoconservatives.
Yes, there were liberal New England WASPs, but there are and have also been people like Carleton Putnam, Carleton Coon, Madison Grant, H.P. Lovecraft (yes, he was a fiction writer, and is now a cult 'fringe' figure for readers of fantasy fiction, but he had very realist views on race, and he was more or less a New England Yankee to the core.)
Overall, it seems only to help the other side when we turn on and accuse each other. If anything is to defeat us, it will be this spirit of division: everybody else vs. 'WASPs', the post-baby boomers vs. boomers, Southrons who hate New England Yankees and vice-versa, non-Christians of all stripes vs. Christians. Almost all of the groups mentioned above are looking to pin the blame for our present crisis on one scapegoat group. This is just counterproductive. Everybody seems to have some group they wish to exclude. But if we are to survive and prosper, which is in doubt at this point, we will have to get past the blame game and the internal dissension. At some point we will have to see that since the majority of our people are still under some kind of deep delusion, we will have to make common cause with the rest of our brethren who can see clearly -- even if we don't agree on certain issues. We have to put our differences aside and put concern for our kin and brethren ahead of our grievances or animosities.
And that brings me to one other point which I see as paramount here: Holder says we need to 'talk frankly about race', and I agree. But instead of talking to people who want only to shout us down, I see instead that we need to talk to one another. That's where we may have been 'cowardly'. We hesitate to talk to our unaware or less aware brethren. We need to start communicating with them, break the ice, and try to break through the formidable conditioning to which they've been subjected. That's where the talking needs to be done.
In Selwyn Duke's response, he describes the campaign of vilification of Whites, for which he uses the term 'caucophobia', and which he describes as having been mainstreamed. And he warns of consequences:
What does history teach about the plight of consistently scapegoated and dehumanized groups? It's that they almost invariably end up suffering persecution. And given that current demographic trends indicate whites will becomes a minority in America during the lifetimes of many reading this, and given that even majorities sometimes are tyrannized -- as Sunnis' domination of Shiites under Saddam Hussein and the Spartans' enslavement of the Helots proved -- it's foolishness to dismiss the peril posed by mainstreaming caucaphobia.''
Here, Heather MacDonald takes a different approach, with which I find little in common. I suppose because of her libertarianism, she seems to take a somewhat politically correct approach, and seems to agree with those who think America bears substantial guilt for past sins against minorities. The approach seems to appeal for mercy on the grounds that we are not quite so racist now as we used to be, and deserve credit for amending our ways somewhat:
But if Attorney General Holder is really sincere about wanting a "frank" conversation about race, he should put the following items on the agenda:
The American electorate. The country just elected its first black president. And it actually didn�t talk a lot about Barack Obama�s race during the election, thank heavens, because most Americans were more interested in the candidate�s ideas than in his skin color. There were undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people who wouldn�t vote for Obama because of his race. I would guess that their average age was 75. There is no question that a great many geriatric Americans continue to harbor the rankest racism for blacks, but guess what? They�re not going to be around for much longer. Young people growing up in the last 30 years live on a different planet when it comes to racial attitudes�until the educrats start playing with their minds.''
Young people who have grown up in the last 30 years do truly live on a different planet in regard to race; many if not most live on a planet which has a racial hierarchy, but it is the reverse of the racial order of their supposedly 'rank racist' geriatric elders. Many of these young people who she describes, basically, as the moral betters of their elders, dwell a planet where rap and hiphop are the highest art form, and blacks are put on a pedestal, and where interracial relationships are not only acceptable but considered superior in some circles.
(Disclaimer: I trust my younger readers know that I don't include them in the stereotype. Every generalization admits of exceptions.)
MacDonald continues:
We might also talk about those legions of older, black Americans who have held on to their love of country and belief in its ideals, despite having been subjected to America at its worst. I have had the privilege to speak to many such individuals for my work, and they have broken my heart with their dignity and nobility. Rather than reflexively consulting professional race activists for insights into race in America, the media and politicians might for once seek some voices that contradict the mandatory "angry black male" trope.''
'America at its worst'? I can't believe that this article was mostly lauded over at AmRen. America 'at its worst' is the America of today, as far as I'm concerned. But then again I am probably of that generation that she considers to be 'rank racists.'
She continues:
When communities resist an influx of Section 8 housing-voucher holders from the inner city, say, they are reacting overwhelmingly to behavior. Skin color is a proxy for that behavior. If inner-city blacks behaved like Asians�cramming as much knowledge into their kids as they can possibly fit into their skulls�the lingering wariness towards lower-income blacks that many Americans unquestionably harbor would disappear. Are there irredeemable racists among Americans? To be sure. They come in all colors, and we should deplore all of them. But the issue of race in the United States is more complex than polite company is usually allowed to express. If Eric Holder wants to crank up our racial preoccupations even further, let him at least do so with a full airing of the facts.''
Ultimately, then, she is one of those who thinks all racial differences are attributable to environment and 'nurture', and that if we merely educated minorities better, all races could achieve equally. Such is the libertarian 'see no race' approach.
Yes, I know a few libertarians are more realistic, but the majority are race-deniers. That, for me, was Ron Paul's biggest drawback.
Coming from a very different (and much more realistic) perspective is David Yeagley. His piece is much more blunt, free of the usual PC disclaimers or cant, but here I have to disagree with him as to the cause of our predicament.
Now. The only question is, Whose fault it all this? Frankly, it probably isn�t the fault of black people. It is the fault of their "handlers," or, "masters," the Oedipal white WASPS in power. And no, don�t blame the Jews. They�re a tiny minority. Blame white people�those in power. Inherited power. Deep power.''
I suppose I am fighting a losing battle in trying to rebut this 'WASPs did it' canard. I would like specifics, please. Who are these 'Oedipal white WASPs in power'? Where are they? Who exactly holds the real power in our country, or in the West? How many of them are WASPs of old stock? Very few, to my knowledge. I've posted about that a number of times. WASPs have long since been demoted from power, having been displaced by a coalition mostly of Ellis Islanders and other latecomers (e.g. George Soros, et al). Rich WASPs just don't have much influence or clout, and many old-line wealthy families of WASP origin have long since lost their WASP character and bloodlines. It isn't like the old days, when people in the Social Register were mostly WASP and only intermarried among themselves. The lines are blurred; the elites are cosmopolitans, not WASPs, not even in a cultural sense.
And on a discussion thread, Dr. Yeagley repeats this same thing, in response to a commenter:
PearlGirl, I know there are many suggestions about why these race-based social conditions have come about. I do blame the heirs of the Pilgrims, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant descendents. They have the power and the money. I�ve called it a cultural Freudian Oedipal complex, a latent homosexual aggression. It is whites denigrating whites.''
PearlGirl answers:
Dr. Yeagley - WASPS HAD the power and money. They�ve forgotten who they are,and allowed power and wealth to slip away. I speak AS an actual WASP��.I should look up this quote - but I think it�s salient - an Asian leader just observed that ",,,in a multicultural country, people vote according to Race". The last national "election" we�ve endured definitely proves that thesis. Are you familiar with the work of Arthur Kemp? He posits that when a homogenous population allows "The Other" in - the original population fades, and vanishes,due to miscegenation, and the original social order collapses. There are plenty of examples of this phenomena, through the whole of Human history. Now - your position has merit, but it�s a part of the whole picture. We must always, in any event, ask fearlessly "Why?" We MUST bother to ask, and determine causation. Always. You can�t cure a disease, if you don�t know the cause.''
Thanks to PearlGirl, whoever she is. She says what I've said before: in allowing the 'tired and poor' of first, Eastern and Southern Europe, and then farther-flung places, to settle here, the result was an accelerated weakening of our country, as the racial/ethnic/religious bonds were weakened. It's true that many Anglo-Saxon New England liberals were bleeding-hearts who promoted the wave of Ellis Island immigration which was really the beginning of 'diversity' and the 'melting pot' debacle for us, but there were also New England Yankees who opposed that, and as proof of that, we see how the greatest resentment of the Ellis Islanders is reserved for the hated WASPs who were supposedly 'unwelcoming' and 'bigoted' towards the Ellis Islanders. Their descendants carry grudges many generations later. In fact, I would say they started the trend of victimology, of ethnic grudges and vendettas: ''your ancestors wanted to exclude my ancestors, so you owe me' morphed into 'your ancestors enslaved mine, so you owe me.' It's a continuous line of descent. The Ellis Islanders often sympathize with today's immigrants, and often side with blacks and minorities generally.
And who were the main perpetrators of the ill-omened 1965 Hart-Celler Act?
I've linked favorably to Dr. Yeagley, but I think he is mistaken on this point, and yet he is not alone in making this accusation against WASPs.
It's a very popular one even among 'race realists' and ethnoconservatives.
Yes, there were liberal New England WASPs, but there are and have also been people like Carleton Putnam, Carleton Coon, Madison Grant, H.P. Lovecraft (yes, he was a fiction writer, and is now a cult 'fringe' figure for readers of fantasy fiction, but he had very realist views on race, and he was more or less a New England Yankee to the core.)
Overall, it seems only to help the other side when we turn on and accuse each other. If anything is to defeat us, it will be this spirit of division: everybody else vs. 'WASPs', the post-baby boomers vs. boomers, Southrons who hate New England Yankees and vice-versa, non-Christians of all stripes vs. Christians. Almost all of the groups mentioned above are looking to pin the blame for our present crisis on one scapegoat group. This is just counterproductive. Everybody seems to have some group they wish to exclude. But if we are to survive and prosper, which is in doubt at this point, we will have to get past the blame game and the internal dissension. At some point we will have to see that since the majority of our people are still under some kind of deep delusion, we will have to make common cause with the rest of our brethren who can see clearly -- even if we don't agree on certain issues. We have to put our differences aside and put concern for our kin and brethren ahead of our grievances or animosities.
And that brings me to one other point which I see as paramount here: Holder says we need to 'talk frankly about race', and I agree. But instead of talking to people who want only to shout us down, I see instead that we need to talk to one another. That's where we may have been 'cowardly'. We hesitate to talk to our unaware or less aware brethren. We need to start communicating with them, break the ice, and try to break through the formidable conditioning to which they've been subjected. That's where the talking needs to be done.
Labels: American History, Ethnocentrism, Ethnonationalism, Freedom Of Association, Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of Thought, Immigration, Political Correctness, Social Divisions
0 comment Saturday, May 3, 2014 | admin
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.
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