Anomie, Enemies, Policy, Unity
By absentee Posted in Immigration — Comments (99) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Qui Tacet Consentire
I wanted to pick up on the previous discussion regarding immigration. My blog post is located here, and Paul J. Cella wrote an excellent, related article located here. The topic of Paul Cella's article is a concept that is referred to by many names, but most effectively by Paul as "America the Abstraction," which is essentially the theory that the idea of America is the only part of her identity that is worthy of preservation.
Although a number of commenters positioned my blog and Paul's article as contrary points, I do not feel the same way. I do not disagree with Paul that this theory is incorrect. That America the identity and the heritage are wholly composed of ideas and ideals is, in my opinion, completely wrong. As I remarked in the comments section, abstract ideals and ideas cannot be the solitary or even primary embodiment of the national identity. I believe a three-dimensional understanding of the nation is the proper conceptualization.
Naturally, this is all philosophical conjecture. The problem, of course, is that we have immigration system problems in this country that are not being resolved. As we debate, the borders remain porous. As we discuss, the tide is unabated.
Paul, John E., Birdmojo and others have rightly identified the single biggest problem. We have yet to form a consensus on immigration, and our debates rarely resolve fundamental issues. This disconnect is naturally reflected in Washington. Who can expect Congress to forge a reasonable, shared position, when average everyday voters, bloggers, pundits, columnists, and the chattering masses et al cannot do so?
I believe that the two conservative sides of the debate are actually not that far apart. I suggest we are both right to some extent. If here at Redstate we can identify the common ground, then it is evidence not only that the common ground exists, but that the immigration problem is not unresolvable.
To that end, I propose the following list of fundamentals, which we could all agree upon, or discard:
- When resident citizens are being made aliens in their own land, that is a usurpation of the rights of citizenship and the comforts they are entitled to by heritage. Irrespective of the cause, such a consequence is an injustice against our citizens.
- Closing the borders and barring all entry is counter to our culture, it is contrary to our character, and it is not our tradition. It is, in short, not American. Taken as a philosophical point regarding our heritage, immigration is an integral facet of the American identity.
- Requiring that immigrants learn English to gain citizenship preserves our cohesiveness. While it is true that bilingual nations can thrive and prosper, such cultures must grow organically. They thrive because the people are individually bilingual. Allowing the United States to become two monolingual groups living together is a destructive change to our culture and national identity.
- Border security transcends immigration, legal or illegal. There are evils in this world and evil men who wish to do us gravest harm. Controlling access to the nation, to the extent it can be done, is a moral and practical imperative. We must prevent evil from achieving its ends.
- The status of illegal immigrants currently residing and working in the United States is a separate issue from border security. Preventing border security resolution on the grounds of the status of illegal aliens is itself an assault on our security.
- The simple desire to preserve the cultural heritage and continuous historic identity of the United States, and to prevent replacement of that identity with an outside culture, is not nativism, racism, or isolationism in and of itself.
- The belief that legal immigration is a beneficial, ultimate societal good is not globalism, multiculturalism, open-borders, or anti-sovereign by nature.
- As conservatives, and with the belief in the good faith of our fellows, we can accept that neither Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, George Bush, nor John McCain have other than the best interests of this nation in mind. As such, we can negotiate in good faith and based on our common ground.
Now, my phrasing here is amateurish, perhaps naive. I don't pretend to be an expert. What I hope is that we can discuss in the comments section a refinement of these ideas, or rejection of them, and suggest other points of agreement. It would be great to see replies which list which of the above one agrees with. Obviously this does not address the primary debate issues. The purpose is to establish the common principles first.
In some ways, this can seem purposeless. It may seem we cannot hope to influence or affect the course of events. Those in power intend to wield that power on this issue, and no doubt soon.
I do not think it is fruitless. On the small scale, I think it would be nice to have at least some minor points resolved among us here at Redstate. Similarly, I think it is a useful test of the theory that we all share common ground on this issue. Mostly, though, it is because I believe Republicans have been through some trying times in the last two years, and it would be a considerable salve if we could resolve differences at a grassroots level, and then work together to try and push those resolutions up through the chain of the party.
America must face the issue of immigration. The absence of good policy cannot long be tolerated. The failure to control our border is an epic, catastrophic lapse for which we all bear some responsibility. You and I cannot expect to resolve the issue here and now. However, silence is consent. Let us not be silent and consent to anomie, but rather show the wisdom found in unity.
--
Update 1: added legal before immigration in 7. Suggested by StandardCandle.
absentee
In that I dispute that it is happening to any degree worthy of great concern.
Waves of immigrants have always changed the culture of the destination, in some cases causing the prior locals to re-locate. We have had whole neighborhoods that were English, then Irish, later Italian, then Carribean, whatever (the above is a generic example). That constant evolution is American culture.
But evolution and usurpation are two different things. When a person has the validity of their position as a citizen upset by a drastic and immediate change, the person's rights are trampled. Their liberty and pursuit of happiness are limited or contravened if their home and lands become suddenly alien in language and culture.
The extent to which this is actually occurring can easily be one of the debate points. But that such a drastic upheaval is unjust is one of the points I think we should all either agree upon or dismiss. If you dispute the degree to which it is occurring that is a fine debate point. My question is whether you dispute that, given the improper degree, it is unjust.
absentee
of "When resident citizens are being made aliens in their own land"
I dispute that a bunch of
You are putting words in my mouth because you presume to know what I am thinking. If you think the wording isn't quite right that is fine with me, but don't rephrase what I said. Did you read the previous articles I linked to for context?
absentee
Yes, I read, and contributed some small amount towards the discussion that followed.
If your statement of princiapals needs a ton of external context, it needs to be better defined I think.
referring to need a lot of extra context.
I would not dispute a more indepth phrasing however.
absentee
With #1 for two reasons. First it seems predicated on the belief which some may object to that we are in actual danger of becomeing aliens in our own land. This gets into the whole cultural superiority idea and get's messy fast. Second I don't like the word entitled.
I would rather it read something like:
When the immediate effect of immigration policy is to place resident citizens in a prejudicial position within their communities. Irrispective of the cause, such a consequence is an injustice against our citizens.
I thought the rest ranged from excellent to very good.
If you want to be a bit daring I would add one.
We recognize that following the historical pattern of U.S. immigration policy, any new immigration solution must provide a multi-tiered path to legal status, including an expedited path for those with either vested family or employment opportunites. This may or may not include a path to citizenship.
Except I wanted to refrain from referring to immigration policy, so that it would be more a general philosophical premise.
Is there a way to phrase it without referencing immigration policy?
Also, I don't want to water it down too far. As citizens we should be considered entitled to our citizenship and the privileges that come with it. Among those are the ability to communicate and interact with our fellow citizens. Transplanting a foreign culture in a way that strips the community of its language and heritage is not just.
Or do you disagree with the foundation of that position?
absentee
with cultural superiority to some extent. I believe that our culture and heritage are the best in the world and superior to all others. That doesn't mean that I hate and despise other cultures, just that I believe that ours is demonstrably better. Cultures will evolve over time, ours included and that can be good or bad, but frankly, I am in no hurry to see ours become different than it is. Having said that, I have no problem with controlled legal immigration, under the conditions that assimilation is strongly encouraged. A melting pot is no problem for a strong culture.
That may not be what you meant by cultural superiority, but that is what I take it to mean.
Why is it that people want to come to this country and then when they get here they can't wait to change the country to what they had where they came from. I like to experience the cultures in other countries so I go there to see what they are like, but I don't want to live there and I surely wouldn't insist that they change their culture just to please me. It doesn't make any sense...
For example, why is it that when Midwesterners or Southerners want to come to New York city and then when they get here, they can't wait to change the city to what they had where they came from? They can't stand the noise, the rudeness of the people, the lack of neighbors, etc. etc.
I believe it's called human nature.
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
Show me someone who enjoys having a thirty story skyscraper built next door and I will show you either the guy that owns the land or an idiot.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
immigration debate as well. People tend to view the issue in line with their own, often subconscious, perspectives, prejudices and biases.
It is interesting to me that we remain so predictable after years of practice and effort invested in perfecting the veneer of enlightened civilization.
Self awareness is unfortunately a quality in shorty supply.
Yes, Paul, at its base, patriotism is the manifestation of many kinds of love; a desperation born of mortality to be reconciled with God; and the desire that one's mortal life have an immortal importance by being a part of something that he was part of and that others will be part of in a similar way.
Only people that love their life will fight others to save their life. And by life, I don't just refer to a man's physical well being. No, a man's life includes the other people that he participates in life with, that he influences and that influence him. People that think in the same general way. people that he is bonded with in a style of living in which they revere the same things.
I have always been an American exceptionalist that loved America from the First Grade till today. I have always been patriotic. I shed tears upon hearing the National Anthem, speeches quoting the Founders, Lincoln, FDR, etc.
But the patriotism I had before 911 doesn't compare to the patriotism I feel to my bones everyday post 911. The patriotism I feel now, is akin to the way one's feelings about one's parents changes over time after when they die. At some point you are shocked and stunned in a very desperate way with the fact of who they were, how so very precious and important they were, and how much they loved you, and you can hardly bear the fact that you can't repay it more now that you realize just how important they were.
My parents were both passed away before 911. Mother when I was 17, but Dad, just a few years earlier. To not be able to talk to Dad and watch ballgames was already a source of great pain, but then to not be able to see him now.
And then it struck me. I looked around at America in a whole new way, especially those in my communities and State, but also the whole country. I saw the country that my Mom and Dad lived and died in and left their mark upon. I was one of their marks, and this was my country. And Others wanted to destroy my country. To cause my Dad to die all over again. To cause all of us and all we have been, are and will be, to die, utterly, and forever.
The Cold War was never real to me. Probably because I was in a Carter-like liberal denial. After my conservative epiphany, though, when I read many books about Reagan and what he faced, I now realize how dangerous was the world I sleepwalked thru while Reagan won the war.
But on 911 and after, it really hit me just how much I loved this country and would do anything to preserve it for posterity. I thought back to a College Professor that I didn't understand at the time. He would tear up talking about sitting on the banks of the Panama Canal watching our Boys go to fight Japan after Pearl Harbor. I didn't understand then. I was a young spoiled American that just took all this for granted. WWII was history and it had to be that way....
Well, when the WTC towers fell, I knew that things would be like they would be only if we fought and won. And what was to happen post-911 wasn't in a history book.
It was and is in us. George W Bush is one of us, and he has in him what many of us have in us. Hopefully a majority. I am confident it is a strong majority. But there is a string minority that does not have in themselves what Bush and I and Millions have that will not let us ever stop fighting to save this country, and that is a love so deep that to live is to love this country.
Yes, TS, Cella, Johne, and others, it is first an emotion. It is THE emotion. The emotion that animates a man to want to live. That cares about his fellow man. After the fall, and more specifically, after man united under one government totally alienated from God living in pure evil, God separated man into nations so that evil would not compound exponentially. So that nations could check each other and not be as likely to think himself God.
So it is God's plan that men look after themselves in groups that take care of themselves first and protect themselves from others. For when man is not so separated, he is less able to see God.
Patriotism is really a barometer to determine if a man is truly alive in God's world. Is a man's life connected with others or is he an Island to self?
This patriotism I have post-911 is different in kind from what it was pre-911. I think about this love everyday. And I guess it explains my complete and total contempt for people that show that they do not love this country by what they say and do. They say they love this country, but what they really love is themselves and an imaginary country that never was and never will be. They are not connected to our people by love. No. They are connected to us and this land, more like a Scientist is to guinea pigs, or doctors to patients, or a hotel patron to the Hotel staff, or curious ex-patriots from Utopia nation. We just don't measure up to them. they just can't accept that this is as good as it gets. They hate life because they are surrounded by Neanderthals compared to them. they hate their parents for not fixing the world before they were born into it. They reject the notion that man cannot perfect himself thru social structure. They reject the notion that war is ever necessary. Send a few detectives to Tora Bora.
It is people like theses that look at 5000 years of history in which there has always been war and in which civilizations like them fell to barbarians, and yet come away clueless and in denial. If only people would just do right, then I might could love them...
Well, they wait to love and so are not prepared to fight.
And if we are to preserve this nation we love, we will have to defeat the Left just as surely as we have to defeat the Jihadists.
God Bless America
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
No offense, but I really don't think your list of "common ground" principles are all that common ground for most conservatives...or really most Americans...
1. Assumes that Americans that want the illegal immigration issue resolved feel threatened by the cultures of immigrants... There may be some small faction of morons that think this way, but I don't think the American public is anti-culture to legal immigration.
2. I don't think the majority that opposes illegal immigration ever said that we should stop legal immigration. So this isn't exactly an issue for the debate.
3. The English requirement has nothing to do with "National Identity". In my mind if a legal immigrant wants to succeed and not become a democrat voting government dependent socialist they need to be able to succeed in opportunities...To me, making them learn English is egalitarian.
4. Border security is more than just a National Security issue...its also a deterrent to illegal activity...plain and simple...let's keep honest people honest.
5. They are not separate issues. They are cause and effect...this isn't some sort of "correlation" argument...its CAUSE and EFFECT. This is why McCain's bill was sunk with the word Amnesty... You don't reward illegal behavior through compromise... You build a fence. Then you enforce the laws as they are...AS THEY ARE! Then we close the loopholes in our laws, and enact better policies. Even if it takes 25 years to deport every single illegal immigrant, I still believe we should simply be enforcing the law...we don't even do this much.
6. Fantastic rhetoric...but again really doesn't apply to this debate...see response to #1.
7. I can agree with this one.
8. I don't put a lot of good faith in politicians as a general rule...in fact my good faith doesn't kick in until they prove they deserve it by some unrelenting faithful action for the good of our country...The more of this they accomplish in multiple areas...the more I can support them.
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
That the precepts are the resolution.
For example, your objection to 2) is that the majority do not oppose legal immigration. I agree with that statement. Thus, it is common ground. That's the point.
As for one, clearly something is being read into this that I do not intend. It seems like an unobjectionable proposition to me. I never remotely suggested that the mere presence of the culture of immigrants is a threat. However, based on previous discussions with mbecker and R.E.Finch to name a few, there is a sense of an existential threat to the American culture in certain areas of the nation. I did not word number one in any way that suggests a paranoid fear of other culture. I am positing that it is reasonable not to want one's culture heaved aside and a foreign culture, in total and including language, foisted upon one's community.
If you can't agree to that it is one thing, but please do not rephrase what I said to be something I certainly did not say.
3. That's fine that you don't agree, but it has nothing to do with John McCain. I know for a fact a number of people here agree about English, who are variously for or opposed to John McCain's immigration policies.
4. I don't really see the fundamental difference here. The idea that the border must be secured should be a no-brainer as a consensus principle.
5. If you can't separate the two issues you get what we currently have. Two warring factions and an unsecured border. If you can't agree to separate the two, then you aren't interested in consensus. That's fine with me, you don't have to be. But you are demanding your point of view be the consensus. I'm trying to find middle ground.
6. Your problem here is the same. The point is finding common ground between two differing positions. You don't see that this point is relevant because you are convinced of the correctness of your side and the incorrectness of the other. Again, you don't have to be interested in common ground, but this point is essential to common ground. The soft immigration folks must agree that the hard immigration folks aren't acting in bad faith or out of racism. I don't see how you can't see that this is relevant.
7. Same exact principle as 6, so I'm not sure why you are fine with this one and not the other, unless it is a matter of wording. I'm happy to revise the wording appropriately.
8. They are examples, the point is that the two conservative factions should concede the good faith of one another if there is to be a resolution.
If your position is that the McCain side is totally wrong, and the Tancredo side is totally right, that's your prerogative. If you think that the only resolution to immigration is to defeat the McCain side and total victory for the Tancredo side, again, that's your prerogative.
I was asked, previously, how do the two sides reach consensus. I'm trying to find the common ground. I don't appreciate being told that I am acting in bad faith either.
Maybe there is no middle ground. Maybe I suck at writing it or have a flawed method of seeking. But please don't suggest I'm just shilling for one side.
absentee
community is real and dangerous. The US has been great at assimilating large numbers in the past, but we have never had numbers as large, come so fast with no interruption as we have in the recent past. Moreover, in the past, we had better assimilated cultural elite natives.
See the books
Alien Nation - Brimelow
State of Emergency - Buchanan
seriously
btw, great blog
but be forewarned
when one engages with paul and Johne, beware head explosions!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I was starting to wonder if #1 above was totally irrelevant after all.
If you have any wording suggestions please let me know. I'm not exactly batting 1000 here.
absentee
town was inundated with a 10% addition to its population of UnstandardCandles in a year, he would understand.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I'm trying to find common ground because I believe mbecker's honest assessment. I've been swayed even by R.E. Finch. I still have soft tendencies toward immigration, but I realize the necessity of making it a committed point that mbecker has a real and important threat to deal with, and Finch has a legitimate non-racist point to make.
Being that I am on the opposite side from them, I think consensus requires me to make those assessments aloud. This is how compromises are forged.
Immigration is an unresolved problem. I don't think StandardCandle realizes that drawing a line in the sand isn't getting anything done.
Obviously, though, compromise is still a long way away. I've had, what, three people agree that securing the border is a common goal.
absentee
Anything else loses the next 30 elections to the Democrats and jerks around millions of hispanic families. I don't want either to be what the Republican party is known for in 15 years.
You don't win elections by presenting soft tendencies...
You softly and eloquently put forth your arguments to reasonable people...I know i'm not going to win the vote of someone who wants to destroy the constitution...nor do I want to.
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
It does not. If you won elections based purely on the superiority of your ideas and arguments to "reasonable" people There would be very few Democrats in office. :P
Your position is naieve and if our Party follows it, we will lose.
since when was winning hearts and minds with truth been naive?
The reality is we don't reason with reasonable people...instead we allow liberals to bait us into foolish arguments...we lose the cultural wars to democrats because we are not Reagan enough to communicate truth with courage...we fall into the trap that we don't need moral authority...we just need to tell the people what they want to hear...and then do nothing when we're in office...
people vote for change because they feel they've been lied to...people like McCain because he's been labeled as a "Straight Talker"...
your position is foolish and unnerving...did you forget what you're fighting for?
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Mainly because it invites the culture war argument...I don't want to invite the "R" card or be demured as a cultural elitist...Idiots with megaphones calling me a racist will only drown out the legitimate points of policy.
Yeah I understand we need to fight to preserve the ideals of American culture...but not in this debate it only provides a red herring for the opposition.
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
I see what you are saying.
I don't know, I kind of want to say sod off to the liberal side of things. They'll presume bad faith regardless.
I think the majority of the voting public would favor either Republican solution over any Democrat solution, any day of the week. It seems to me, then, that consensus among Rs is the most prudent course of action, for the fastest resolution. In this regard, I think it is important to discuss the sensitive issues.
The point of my previous blog on the topic was that we can distinguish our arguments from the mult-culti's and the racists, and we can do it loudly and proudly.
People may not always buy Republicans, but they believe conservative positions, media notwithstanding.
absentee
I guess what I'm saying is that if these become the monikers of "common ground"...the whole issue will be lost...
I suppose if anything I'm trying to help you understand that for "hard immigration" folks... or as I would phrase it... "People who understand sovereignty is not usurped but earned through protecting the rights of individuals and honoring and sustaining the laws of the constitution and the policies of our government"...we don't want to reward law breakers.
This is the slippery slope my friend...
If you were to rephrase #1 to a "hard immigration" person with:
1. Obviously you're not a racist...you just respect the law, obviously you don't feel your culture is threatened, you just respect the law, obviously I'm not going to try to define "American Culture" to you...you're just saying you respect the law...therefore let's just say that we should preserve the rights of individuals who are using the legal process and stop talking about the threat of culture, we may just find common ground.
Nobody wants to turn this debate into a cultural war...and that's the problem with #1.
It's a simple thing really. There is but one principle for illegal immigration. Sovreignty is not usurped but earned through protecting the rights of individuals and honoring and sustaining the laws of the constitution, ergo...respect the law.
If you are diametrically opposed to the policies and the law...go ahead and try to change them...but be forewarned...if you compromise on illegal activity you compromise the effective use of the constitution.
Trust me I'm voting for John McCain...I'm not even criticizing the man...
I simply believe he is wrong. I believe "soft immigration" folks are wrong. I believe that this is a slippery slope, its a defining moment for me much like Roe V. Wade is for SoCons...
Believe me I love Latin America culture... My wife is teaching me Spanish right now... I love to visit both the southern and northern countries of America... I was born in Canada as an American born abroad... I just have a hard time understanding that when we compromise the law and weaken soft policy as it is...that we're only asking for the loss of sovereignty.
I don't want to lose our constitutional priveleges...and I don't want to sell out future generations...
If you want to find common ground with me...then please by all means explain to me in reasonable terms why I should find common ground...
Please don't take my response personally...if anything take it as feedback...you're trying to list the principles of common ground...I'm trying to help you understand why I don't think these are points of common ground with me...
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
It has nothing to do with voting for John McCain, I really don't know how else to say that.
For the rest, I can only say you continue to require a total acceptance of your points and no concessions to the other side. That's fine, but that's really not what I'm writing about.
Also, if you don't think securing the border is common ground, then I really don't see what else there is to talk about.
absentee
Securing the border is common ground, but not at the expense of dare I say "Amnesty".
As for #7 Let's be clear... Are we saying that we should embrace H1B's and get a better policy for bringing the brightest and the best to this country legally?...cause that's where I agree with you... If you'd be so kind as to qualify "immigration" with the adjective "legal" then I think that's where we're making a difference between 6 and 7.
I'm not asking you to accept my views on this... but what you're listing as common ground is not going to be accepted as common ground...especially if I can't agree with your points...
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
Not at the expense is right. That is not common ground, that's a debate point.
I am sincere when I say it is not about the policy debate. I want to establish the common philosophical ground because, as anyone who has dabbled in organized debate can attest, defining the terms and establishing the agreed upon material is highly useful.
For number 7, same answer. No, we are not saying anything about H1Bs because that is policy.
I do think you are absolutely right about including legal before immigration, that was a severe oversight on my part.
I will make the update. This is precisely the kind of feedback I was hoping for.
absentee
you take some of the emotion out of the issue and potentially free up the issue of security to be solved as a warm up to the issue of resident illegals. I happen to think that's a perfect example of a common ground starting place from which to start.
Issue #1 border security.
Issue #2 resident illegals
Seems it would be easier to get consensus on the first.
For the record, I loved your above suggested addition from my own point of view, however I don't think it could realistically be included as a consensus point. Certainly it should be a debate point.
absentee
I appreciate you and Paul and others who continue to address this issue. I absolutely believe if we don't deal with it the Democrats eventually will and we won't be pleased with the results.
We are already losing this fight if we don't move quickly to gain consensus and engage the issue with a real and carefully crafted solution.
I read this article just this afternoon on CNN and it makes me feel the opportunity slipping from our grasp.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/15/latinos.gop/index.html
This is really a great post...If we are going to come to consensus for all conservatives...so we have some talking points against liberal
Here's what I would list as common ground...
1. Embracing the culture of legality and due process has never been a racial/cultural elitist issue.
2. Legal immigration is wonderful, and we need to remove the inconsistancies and stregthen the policies so we can ensure the success of cultural integration.
3. English as a requirement is an egalitarian cause that enables our legal immigrants to have every opportunity.
4. Bolstering border security is in the best interest of our National Security and is a deterrent to illegal immigration and is absolutely within our budgetary means and abilities to carry forth in a humane and dignified way.
5. (Note: after re-reading this...yes they should be dealt with separately...but should be recognized as cause and effect.)
6. The simple desire to preserve the cultural heritage and continuous historic identity of the United States, and to prevent replacement of that identity with an outside culture, is not nativism, racism, or isolationism in and of itself...and furthermore is no threat to the culture of legal immigrants...nor an argument for border security.
7. The belief that legal immigration is a beneficial, ultimate societal good is not globalism, multiculturalism, open-borders, or anti-sovereign by nature.
8. We as conservatives need to empower our elected officials by winning this debate by consistently deflating the irrational arguments of liberals and reach out to reasonable people with reasonable and simple logic. We can not allow ourselves to fall into the circular logic of liberals when debating these issues, nor fall for race baiting tactics which are despicable and divisive.
9. Illegal immigration is a threat to our constitution immigrants must respect our laws and policies before being given citizenship.
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
I didn't quite follow this:
"nor an argument for border security."
I like your number 8, but I still think we need real examples. Maybe using the key players is too divisive, but perhaps there are other people or specific references?
I think your 9 is a good suggestion, but I'd like to hear some replies before adding it above.
Thanks for working with me.
absentee
The reason I say #6 is not an argument for border security...or really does not fall in the realm of this common ground area we're defining for the issue of illegal immigration again relates to my issue with #1.
The first thing I ever hear out of a liberal's mouth on this issue is something along the lines of "Why should we work so hard to keep immigrants out of this land to preserve our history...OUR HISTORY IS STEALING THE LAND FROM NATIVE AMERICANS!...BLAH BLAH BLAH..."....
I think if we bring this issue up as a common ground principle it invites the criticisms of Idiots with megaphone voices spouting off ridiculous rhetoric that makes reasonable people tune out the discussion...so that's my reasoning...similar to #1... Let's not give them any sort of ammunition to tear apart the legitimate points of our view point.
I absolutely love the way its worded...but I can't expect a liberal to understand its poignant meaning...and I don't expect an independent to take the time to parse the words in a debate...
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
The only one of yours I have a small issue with is 9. I don't think illegal immigration is a threat to our constitution. In addition it implies a lack of respect on the part of all illegals which I don't think is the case. I respect the law but I speed to work anyway.
I would go with something like: The financial, criminal, and uncontrollable nature of Illegal immigration is a threat to the stability of the American social structure. The path to legal residency must include a commitment to integrate and respect the values, language and laws of the United States before a grant of legal residency is given.
I would also add a point 10. There must be a path of probationary status preceding citizenship in which a prospective citizen may demonstrate their commitment to the laws, values and language of the United States.
Still, Your post was well thought out and articulated. Well done.
My 14th amendment rights are threatened by an illegal immigrant population....How many generations will it take of the children of illegal immigrants becoming the largest political constituency in America that has the right to vote?Will they attempt to repeal this amendment?
"The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.
Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment, although it has generally been assumed that they are. In some cases the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda and Plyler v. Doe. Nevertheless, some claim that Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation: such legislation is often proposed by individual members of Congress but has never been passed into law." - Wikipedia article
Not that I'm claiming we should pass legislation that would proclude "Soil born citizenship"...
However, I do believe that the larger the illegal immigrant population grows the greater the likelyhood that their US Born children may indeed build the political constituency needed to repeal this important amendment.
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
Sure it is...just so long as there is not too much of it.
High levels of immigration, even if it's mostly or all legal, over a long period of time is bad news for the GOP. The idea that we can solve illegal immigration by massively increasing already high levels of legal immigration makes sense from a certain point of view, but it certainly isn't conservative.
Unless our current system of never-ending chain migration is changed, then the GOP is demographically doomed.
I realize I'm not exactly the target audience here, but:
The simple desire to preserve the cultural heritage and continuous historic identity of the United States, and to prevent replacement of that identity with an outside culture, is not nativism, racism, or isolationism in and of itself.
How exactly are you differentiating the "replacement" of identity with the "shifting" of identity? These definitions need stating and refining; or else it seems like you're holding new immigrants to a different standard than previous (mostly European) immigrants who have temporarily replaced (while in ghettos, barrios, etc.), and then shifted and changed mainstream American identity and culture irreversibly. Now, obviously there is a semantic difference between "replace" and "shift/evolve" but I think in actual practice we're dealing with gradations. And I don't see quite where certain definitions lie on that gradiant. Without an explanation this does seem like nativism to me.
On #6 I'm probably relying too heavily on prior discussion at Redstate as the basis.
I agree the phrasing needs work. I'm open to input.
absentee
I read some of those "heritage" threads and commented in one, so I sort of know what you're talking about. But this point will be difficult to flesh out accurately for two reasons:
(1) There is an engrained resistance to European Americans talking about their heritage. Especially in the context of "preserving" it. Now, that shouldn't matter when making a colorblind list of common goals/opinions, but it does matter. Somehow that context must be transcended.
(2) American history is about absorbing new cultures, and replacing certain parts of old cultures with new parts, whether that's Cinco de Mayo, Chinese takeout, or the National Cathedral. As I said in the above post there's a gradation of change, and everyone here accepts a certain amount of it and (apparently) finds a certain higher level unacceptable. I don't know how you define a binary position (which is kind of what your list is) on something when it's universally accepted to be gray like that.
I don't really feel like culture is changing too fast -- or that it's threatening my heritage or my country's heritage -- so I can't offer any real specifics on how you can craft #6 to avoid the pitfalls of my two points above. But I'd say in the immigration debate the problems with #6 that I've listed are among your main rhetorical and political stumbling blocks as conservatives.
Your comment that American history is aout absorbing new cultures.
Our history is basedonoter cultures blending with ours not our with theirs. That i te mes we have now, teirs is nt ad they donot want it to be blended with ours.
was to become Americans,not what those of today want, to call America not their coutry but to remain citzens of their country of origin.
like learning and speaking English only when outside the home, like obeying ALL our laws... Not what is happening today
past groups of immigrants, such as the Irish and Italians were very good at becomming a part of OUR culture. Sure the first immigrants held on to their heritage, but the following generations chose to become very American. These people came here to become Americans, that is the difference.
Multiculturalism is a ruined theory, it has been tossed in the ash bin of history like the failed ideas of communism and fascism.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I was responding specifically to:
...learning and speaking English only when outside the home, like obeying ALL our laws
This is a simplification that goes past accuracy into the realm of rose-colored glasses.
for example, older Italians, never learned English. But what they did do was make sure their kids learned English, learned about America, and assimilated. Also, sometimes it was the kids who took this on themselves.
Look, I know this is complicated, people do not fit into a simple box. But what we have seen is that some groups have done better in this country than others. In fact, several groups, such as Asians and Middle Easterners, have done better than whites. Then again, we see problems in the black community, as a whole, a minority that has been in this country for many generations.
What I think this all comes down to is one can either bemoan challenges or strive to overcome these challenges. Something we see amoung SOME latinos, many of whom are illegal, is they actually proudly say they are not here to become Americans and they have no intention of becoming mainstream Americans. This idea was NEVER something widespread among Italians or the Irish. It was not even widespread among Latinos a generation or two ago. This is why we need to keep out those that do not want to be Americans and welcome those that do.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Can I ask if you agree or disagree with the list of common ground items? Or think they are useless and should be drug in the street and shot?
absentee
of puny minds has no business delving into verb conjugation, but shouldn't that be "dragged"?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I think they are fair and something most of us could agree upon. If I had to quibble at all, I would say that they are too easy to agree with. In other words, DeLay and McCain would agree on these, even some Democrats would agree with these points.
I think this is a good effort though, it is something we could bring to the American people and show most are in good faith. Unfortunately, to fix the problem, we will have to come up with concrete actions, such as more border security, no sanctuary cities, English only, etc.
Also, there are people and entities that might agree with you in principle, but they have other primary motivations when it comes to this issue. There are farmers that want cheap labor, their are politicians looking at their districts minority population, and there are even those that do not really like our culture enough to defend it.
One thing I always seem to go back to is our education problem. If young people are not taught to love our national culture, at some point they will no longer care enough to preserve it.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
"Time and the bell have buried the day, the black cloud carries the sun away."
T.S Eliot, Four Quartets.
and see that multi-cultualism is destroying France/Spain..
That is one reason Islamic's are fighting to keep Western culture's out.
I would never compare are problems with illegals from Mexico to the problem they have with legal and illegal Muslims. In fact, what they see there is that the second generation, kids born in Europe to Islamic immigrants, are more alienated from their new nation than their parents. We see radicalization of these young people who were actually born in Europe. I do not think anyone can argue this is occuring in this country in a like manner.
We Americans focus on ourselves too much. Many of us, well educated people, have no idea how Europe is being flooded with illegals from Islamic countries. These people do not know that Spain, France, and Italy spends millions on high tech gear to try to stop the flood to no avail. There is no question multiculturalism have playeda malignant part in this. Europeans, unlike Americans, decided long ago that their culture was not in need of defense. Today they are waking up but it could easily be too late.
One of the sickest things I have read in a while, is about a new cemetary in England. The cemetary has decided that all graves will face Mecca, that way Muslims will be placated. Historically, Christian graves faced east, although many today do not care about such a thing. But Muslims reguire there graves face Mecca, so in ENGLAND, the past ruler of the waves, all graves will face Mecca. I am sorry, to me this is the end, the final act of complete cultural suicide.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article...
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
are recruiting 2n 3rd generaion illegals to run/sell drugs and even to be the muscle of the gang (that includes murdering family who does not support the gang). I am afraid it is as bad as Europe.
border recently, it is like a war zone I hear. It is hard for me to fathom because I spent a decent amount of time on the border a couple decades ago, it seems the place has changed, much for the worse. We should get more info about this crisis, I have heard about paramilitary gangs invading and out shooting local sherrifs. This is an incursion on sovereignty, an informal act of war, WE must repond before it spins out of control.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
and downthread where you point out that it was the children that assimilated even if the adults did not. My best friend's grandfather came here from Poland. He learned enough English to say "HI", and to pick up the telephone and say "No speak English." BUT the entire family assimilated, and sadly, Frank doesn't speak a lick of Polish. But I can't say much, since I don't speak any German either, despite my Grandparents.
This sad specter of Multi-culturalism is the death of culture. When we teach, or even allow voting, in the language of the immigrant, we allow divisions to erupt in our own culture. Pretty soon you have governmental bodies with documents in multiple languages to accommodate groups who choose not to assimilate into the American culture. We have teachers ONLY teaching in other languages -- rather than bringing those groups into our culture.
This will eventually tear this country apart from within. It is impossible to enter the mainstream society -- and job market, without joining the society.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Let me disagree with a number of posters on point 1. What I am worried about is not just culture. Representative democracy, especially as it is practiced in the U.S., has very important foundations in Western culture. I am not so sure it functions very well outside of that culture. I am very worried that changing the culture could erode our form of government and, most importantly, the freedoms it protects. Not that cultural standards should be enforced by the government, but culture should be greatly encourage by society. Assimilation was part of the process in the past but it is being blocked by the newer trends of multiculturalism.
This is also one of the problems with the combination of federalism and liberalism. I could live with separate liberal and conservative states but liberals can't. Part of the very nature of liberalism seems to be anti-federalist. On federalist issues conservatives always are fighting a defensive battle gradually giving up ground and never able to go on offense because of federalist principles.
NOTE: I may or may not be able to contribute to this thread further before it peters out. Time for me has been short... periods of business lull followed by longer periods of insane activity are inherent in what I do. Right now is one of the latter.
But seeing that absentee has sent me a most pleasing and heartfelt private note, I felt compelled to weigh in here.
First, I must offer my in-kind apology for being abrupt toward absentee. I regret any mis-characterizations I may have made of his positions. It's important for me to admit that I have sometimes not taken the time to understand objectively what he's been trying to say; surely, I have ignored some salient points while looking for means to score one-upsmanship points.
This post is pretty good. I'd like to take a crack at it in the same numerical sequence offered by absentee.
1) I agree thoroughly with the proposition that it is a usurpation of rights of citizenship, and a grave injustice, when citizens are made to feel alien in the nation their ancestors created.
Before I left South Florida a while back, I certainly developed a great appreciation for why some of my aristocratic Anglo-Saxon ancestors left England after William the Conqueror deposed and intentionally replaced them with some of my Norman ancestors.
In the long run, the Norman invasion worked out for the better, and some say that's because it served to cement bonds between England and the rest of Western Europe, strenghtening Western Civilization in the process. But, not all such impositions of mass immigration work out for the better, and contrary lessons should probably be considered; for instance, similar impositions brought upon the Roman Empire by the Vandals didn't work out so well for Roman continuity. Historically, far from being a de facto good, mass immigration remains a hit or miss proposition at best.
Who knows what it means when the host citizenry has been served up four decades of historical revisionism regarding who it really is! I simply can't find a historical parallel for comparison.
2) A reasonable example of the effects of revisionism is evident in the simple acceptance that "closing the borders and barring all entry is counter to our culture, it is contrary to our character, and it is not our tradition." I know that a lot of people believe this to the complete exclusion of other thoughts on the matter. Considering these ideas are closely held by many, I can't argue that they are illegitmate.
I can only argue that they are not fully supported by history. The real and honest truth about this is that all three of these points are both true and false. Mostly, they are contemporarily true... memes that are of relatively recent origin... that over-simplify historical facts.
The historical truth is that small to moderate net annual immigration has generally been very healthy for this nation. But every single period of mass immigration visited upon American citizens has been met by a tremendous amount of intolerance, in most instances vehement rejection by a wide majority, of the impositions that significant numbers of alien others inherently represent. Through our contemporary lens, most would be aghast at the implications of the National Origins Formula portion of the Immigration Act of 1924.
To inform those unaware and refresh those who have forgotten, that formula not only restricted immigration into a near-net-zero equation, it imposed quotas upon future immigration tied directly to the heritage makeup of America's population as it existed in 1890. It was a direct Congressional effort to maintain the ethnic status quo as it existed prior to the Great Wave and an attempt to prevent any further erosion or change to the national character.
I don't know if it became his life's mission, but it appears that repealing the 1924 act was a career-long motivating factor for Representative Emanuel Celler, who served New York from 1923 to 1973. Celler was the author of the 1965 Immigration Act that mostly gave us our current situation. Between him, the Kennedy brothers and the ACLU sympathizers in the Congresses of mid-1960's, we were served up a bill of goods. The language that they used in the selling of it has been widely adopted as factual.
Their spin on immigration is not historically accurate. It just makes it convenient and easy to misrepresent our culture, our traditions and our character as it relates to immigration. We have, in effect, been neutered... castrated... robbed of traditions that acknowledged the primacy of cultural preservation in relation to any benefit we might gain from immigration.
I'd at least like to see a broader recognition of this fact as we debate what to do next.
3) Yes, requiring immigrants to learn english as a prerequisite to citizenship is an absolute must. And, I must add, the intention that people learn english must be accompanied by an intention that our political processes be carried out top to bottom in the same language. The more we give in and allow the lingually disparate to participate in the franchise in their own languages, accommodating various alien tongues at our polling places, the farther we have strayed from the intent of the english language prerequisite.
4) Border Security not only transcends immigration, it transcends just about everything else. If we are not sovereign, we are nothing.
5) You bet your sweet bippi that border security trumps discussion of the status of current illegal residents. This is such an important point that I find it very troubling that anyone would couple border security and immigration reform in the same frame of reference. It seems to me that setting a goal of having governors "certify" that the borders are secure before moving forward with efforts to address the status of those here illegally simply sets the stage for another colossal failure.
There are just too many self interested and special interested groups out there that will push for rapid "certification" with no concern that any more than a temporary fix has actually been accomplished. I believe that Simpson Mazzoli failed to work for similar reasons.
We should have learned by now that we must require our elected representatives to do much more than gain momentary control of our borders before we let them start talking about anything else. It astounds me that there are so many who are eager to accept ephemeral certification of security after a week, or a month, or even a year as "proof" that government is doing its job. Are we so ignorant to accept such a minimal proof after decades of such abject failure? I hope not!
I'd like to see those we select to govern us compel the bureaucracies that serve us to succeed for us in this respect for at least five to 10 years before anyone utters word one about guest worker programs or amnesties or family reunification, et cetera. Every time those words come out of mouths in Washington, we have another wave attempting mass illegal entry.
6) Correct. Desire for cultural preservation and continuity is not in any sense wrong. It's just politically incorrect. At the same time, this desire is both traditional and evident throughout the history of humanity.
7) No, the belief that legal immigration is a beneficial, ultimate societal good isn't globalism, multiculturalism or anything bad by nature. Though the belief does somewhat serve those interests in many ways.
It is perfectly reasonable to counter-contend that legal immigration is not a de facto societal good, but instead should be measured, scrutinized, curtailed and even rejected as prudence dictates for each generation.
8) I have no doubts about the good faith in which any of our leaders operate in regard to immigration and border security. Where I think we differ most is what specifically constitutes the "best interests of this nation."
It would be helpful if those who use the weapons of political correctness to stifle their opponents would simply stifle themselves when the urge to use charges of bigotry to claim moral high ground seizes up their noggins. It demeans the debate.
If we're going to collectively decide to become a proposition nation, then at least let's make the decision without having the fear of being branded politically incorrect used as a weapon to stifle those of us more attached to traditions that suggest we need more than shared ideas to remain a great nation.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
With regard to 2), I think there is an important philosophical argument with regard to what constitutes heritage to be made here. Part of heritage is identity, and identity is the shared philosophical impression of who we are.
It is a common belief that we have always encouraged immigration and absorbed immigrants into our culture, and further to that, that it is part of our character not to halt immigration.
This is expressed in the commonly held understanding of the symbolism in the Statue of Liberty. There are academic debates to be had about whether this identity is based on historic reality, but to the extent that identity is based on belief, those debates will be largely moot.
As the immigration debate must occur within the context of the current American character, I think it is inevitable that the presumption be that we cannot hope to find an immigration compromise that involves closing the border. More than that, though, I think it is necessary to make a realistic assessment of our identity. By and large Americans embrace this identity of immigrant culture and, in this case, the perception defines the reality.
Therefore, we must say that closing the borders is contrary to the character of the nation. Traditionally, people believe in opening our doors. We must recognize that this is the traditional belief in order to debate the policies, I think.
For 5,6,7 and 8, I think most of your modifications are good for the second part of the discussion. As a primary point, for example, it is enough to say that believing immigration is good does not equal globalism, just as it is useful to say that desire for cultural preservation does not equal racism. There are modifications to make on both counts, exceptions etc. But as a core point of agreement I want to establish the baselines.
Thanks!
absentee
It occurs to me that had Emanuel Hart, the Kennedy clan and the ACLU decided to argue it's points from "commonly held understandings" of the time, they'd not have been able to pass the 1965 reforms.
Instead, they created new, fallacious "understandings" and successfully perpetuated them into memes.
It probably would serve conservative interests to at least begin the process of stripping away the most onerous figments with which we've been saddled. If we argue strictly from the liberal conventional wisdom with which we're presently stuck, we're only going to end up with further erosion of sovereignty.
We need to talk about how the current symbolism in the Statue of Liberty differs from its intent; it's something that was clearly understood for several decades. We need to point out that the pauses in our immigration patterns have been vital to assimilation and cultural transmission.
The transmission and wielding of power in the political realm depends upon which cultural fictions are most widely distributed. And make no mistake about it, we do depend and live upon fictions. Before "We the People," it was "We the subjects." "All men are created equal" is a nice sentiment, but it has no basis beyond the lofty language of idealism.
If we simply accept as basis for all future discussion the fictions foisted upon us by mid-1960s leftists, we will forever let them play the role of the home team.
That seems to me to be a pretty weak way to go about making change work from a conservative perspective.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
That was "Emanuel Cellar."
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
I've always been very fond of this as being informative:
So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, "We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did." Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.
-Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, 1/11/89
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
As usual, your posts are among the highlights of Redstate. Truly, you're doing yeoman's work here.
I just wanted to articulate what it was that was about #6 that was bugging me. I think I got it.
The simple desire to preserve the cultural heritage and continuous historic identity of the United States, and to prevent replacement of that identity with an outside culture, is not nativism, racism, or isolationism in and of itself.
I agree with the statement as written.
Where I was getting caught on a snag is the highlighted phrase. One has to agree first that there is in fact a "cultural heritage and continuous historic identity of the United States" before moving on to the racism/navitism clause.
Is there really such a heritage and historic identity?
What precisely is the shared common cultural heritage between (I'll just pick four) a descendant of Cotton Mather in Boston, a lutefisk-eating Norwegian-American in Minnesota, a creole-cooking Cajun in Louisiana, and a descendant of African slaves in Atlanta? What is the continuous historic identity there between these four individuals?
There is no doubt that each of these individuals is an American. None of us would say to Mr. Gunderson in Minneapolis that he's not really an American, nor would anyone claim that Mr. Jones in Atlanta is not truly part of the continuous American historic identity. Each of these individuals is fully American in beliefs, in citizenship, in outlook, etc. etc. But their cultures are vastly different.
This is not to deny the existence of common ground between these four wildly disparate cultures/peoples -- but to say that I'm finding it hard to express such commonality without the language of Ideals. For example, all four have a love of freedom, believe in the rule of law, etc. All ideas and principles and concepts. Nothing 'cultural' in the way of folkways, customs, taboos, food, apparel, mating rituals, music, art, religion, even language.
How do we square this issue?
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
principles as well as a shared education and reverence for a heroic view of American history and American exceptionalism. The Shining City on a Hill as it were. And let me also add that a disproportionate number of the best Americans
we produce are immigrants. Also, don't be mislead to imagine that judeo-christian principles require that one be a bible believing Jew or Christian. No. In fact, I know Indian-American Hindus that adhere to same better than all of Christian academia or even some pastors!
more later
I think there is a book titled "What every american needs to know" (or is a chapter in maybe a book by Bloom?)that kind of sums up what I mean.
Yes, there are regional differences and yes, immigrants do shape and change the culture over time, but we must retain a core in common.
Moreover, part of that shared "history" is also a shared reverence for our concept of liberty. But we must also be "one people", like a family for their to be a true love.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I fully agree that we must retain a core in common. I mean, c'mon, I'm the guy in this discussion who actually had to work at becoming an American. Believe me, I'd like to have a core in common. I just wonder if we can articulate it.
I think there's something I just can't put into words that is "American" in a cultural sense, not just a political ideas sense. I sound like Ed Meese talking about porn: I know it when I see it.
Britney Spears = American; Roora (similar bubblegum pop, but from Korea) = Not American. Tupac = American; MC Solaar = Not American. And in both cases, the foreign artist is trying to emulate the American cultural style; neither is authentic.
I've been working on something for a few weeks on this topic; I hope to have something for further discussion soon....
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
This of course hearkens to previous discussions that ask, what is it to be an American period.
For the purposes of core principles, I think it is relatively safe to presume. The debate between the two sides will hinge largely on what it is to be an American. However, if both sides can agree that someone can be an American, and that there is some nebulous definition of American culture out there, and that preservation of those things is good, then I think we've established a valuable baseline for debate.
For this set of principles, the continuous heritage of America can be seen as:
1. Within the borders of the 50 states.
- self-explanatory.
2. Not a transplantation of foreign culture.
- The existence of chinatown in San Franciso doesn't make Chinese culture American culture.
This does not mean that American culture is a cohesive structure. I see no problem with identifying multiple expressions, from Inuit Alaskan to Lousianan Cajun. It is easy to say that being born in, raised in, and dying in Ancient Egypt, King Tut has no claim on being American. Therefore we can say for certain that there are borders to the definition. That they are broad or difficult to define, or that such definition would be time-consuming, does not mean they are not there.
Therefore the idea that this culture, whatever it may be, is something worth preserving, can be agreed upon, with the understanding that the definition thereof is a debate point.
Also, as worded the statement does not even go so far as to suggest it is a point for debate, but merely that if one wants to preserve those things, we must not presume it is out of a negative motivation.
absentee
I keep stressing that these details are being debated against a background of broad agreement on most of these issues, because I don't want to be misunderstood by newcomers to the discussion.
With that out the way... a couple of points:
For this set of principles, the continuous heritage of America can be seen as:
1. Within the borders of the 50 states.
- self-explanatory.2. Not a transplantation of foreign culture.
- The existence of chinatown in San Franciso doesn't make Chinese culture American culture.
Not self-explanatory, absentee.
Hawaii has a Hawaiian Nationalist movement that wants to go back the Polynesian kingdom. Hardly continuous heritage.
Puerto Rico could be a 51st state if people wanted that to happen -- Puerto Ricans already have American passports, and are American citizens from birth. From Wikipedia:
Puerto Rico is a commonwealth[4] or unincorporated organized territory of the United States, and its political status[5][6] allows it "self-government in respect of internal affairs and administration, subject to relevant portions of the Constitution and the laws of the United States"[7] and the plenary powers of the U.S. Congress. It was allowed to establish a constitution for the internal administration and to handle matters of purely local concern, but "matters of currency, defense, external relations, interstate commerce",[8] "postal system, social security, and mining activities and minerals, among other areas"[5] are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by the 1917 Jones Act. The commonwealth has a republican form of government,[4] subject to U.S. jurisdiction and sovereignty.[3] Its current powers are all delegated by the U.S. Congress and lack full protection under the U.S. Constitition.
San Francisco's Chinatown arguably predates the admission of seventeen U.S. States including Kansas, Colorado, Nevada, and Nebraska. (The Chinese School was created in 1859; Kansas was admitted to the Union in 1861). Which is "more historically American"? How do you make that claim?
Now, here's the thing. I'm personally comfortable taking the position that American culture is rooted in the Anglo tradition, which itself arose out of European cultural tradition dating back to Greco-Roman days plus a generous helping of Hebraic religious-moral tradition from Christianity. That position wipes out claims of SF Chinatown and the Hawaiian Nationalists and even the Native Americans who predate the white men to being part of the historical "American cultural tradition" except as osmotic elements that happen in any culture.
But I think you can see the various political difficulties in making that statement.
And regarding this thought:
Also, as worded the statement does not even go so far as to suggest it is a point for debate, but merely that if one wants to preserve those things, we must not presume it is out of a negative motivation.
Again, my response is... not necessarily so. It really depends on what "those things" are. It wasn't that long ago that American culture believed in the inherent racial superiority of the white race. Check out some of Lincoln's speeches for an illuminating example, since he was one of the most radical egalitarian thinkers of his era, that he casually expresses thoughts that today would be considered blatant white supremacy is... interesting.
Someone wanting to preserve _those things_ can really be accused of negative motivation. I'm sorry, but it's true.
It's frustrating that there aren't any clear answers. I hope that our collective wisdom could come up with the right words to capture what 21st century American conservatives of various backgrounds, personal/tribal histories, etc. believe to be "American culture"....
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
The point about being within the borders means, similar culture springing up elsewhere is not American. It doesn't mean that everything that takes place within the borders is American. The UN is an obvious example.
I can see including Puerto Rico, but not including it doesn't really change the epoint that it has to happen in America to be American, philosophically speaking. That is simply a matter of defining what constitutes the physical borders of America. While we may not have fully defined it yet, I think defining the physical borders is a relatively simple task.
For the Chinatown argument, don't take my meaning wrong. It was not suggesting that Anglo culture is American and what isn't anglo, isn't. My point is that a Chinese-American culture may be American, as a German American might be, but a wholly transplanted culture is not.
There's nothing wrong with Chinatown, or Chinese food. While we may enjoy it, while it may be abundant here, while the culture may be widely available, it doesn't make it American. I submit that Chinese Americans won't consider the Chinese traditions to be American traditions either.
I say gesundheit. This is an American tradition that was originally a German tradition. Same for kindgergarten. But I also eat wienerschnitzel and have Stollen at Christmas. It may be that plenty of other Americans do so, but it is not American culture to do so. Stollen at Christmas is German culture. It's not nessary to go so far as to say it's about Anglo culture. We absolutely can point to some things and say they are not part of our culture, for example, King Tut.
This means there is a culture, be it multi-faceted and partly foreign-born or not, it clearly has some definition. If I say to you that definition includes all your above examples, and that preservation of that culture, as it is so defined, is worth preserving, and you can agree with that, then essentially you agree with my base point. Which is, there is some fuzzy sphere of definition that constitutes American and, whatever that sphere may include, wishing to preserve the sphere isn't by nature an inherently bad thing.
absentee
If both of us are doing this rhetorical back-bending simply because we don't want to go the route that R.E. Finch went -- simply admitting that American 'culture' is at its core, Anglo-Puritan.
In other words, perhaps the German-American looks at those elements in his daily cultural life and classifies them as 'German' or 'American' based on how Anglo-Puritan (or 'contemporary') that element is.
Wienerschnitzel = German
Cheeseburger = American
Stollen at Christmas = German
Shopping at Christmas = American
Would doing that pose any sort of a problem for our project here?
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
Intellectual honesty is required of all participants. There are many that do not agree with that assessment and couldn't, therefore, call it common ground.
I don't agree with that assessment, for example. Cheeseburger is not Anglo Europen culture. It is American culture. The origin does not necessarily equal the result. It is one thing to state the origin of our culture was Anglo, but to say that it currently is, in my opinion and no offense to anyone else, is simply flat out incorrect.
Finch mentions elsewhere that, taking away the influence of the descendants of slaves or the influence of this or that other group, you could still have America proper as we understand it. I completely disagree. America proper as we understand it was shaped by her total history.
Slavery happened. The descendants of slaves influence culture. Rock and Roll, Jazz? Southern cooking? Spirituality? Civil Rights movement? It is useless to conjecture about how we may have had these things without their influence, the fact is, we got those things due to their influence.
There are a number of other things imported and assimilated that are inarguably part of the culture.
Finch's point isn't racist, or nativist, or insular. I agree with that. But I still don't agree with his point. It doesn't have to be descended from Anglo culture to be American, for the simple fact that many things which are pillars of American culture simply are not. These are not incidental things like saying kindergarten, these are fundamental parts of our identity. They are not concoctions of sixties liberals, they are very real and very crucial to our heritage.
Native American and Slave influence alone dispels the anglo qualification, and there is simply no question that culture and heritage were shaped by those influence before 60s revisionists came along.
Also, it was not even true that the Founding Fathers totally derived their ideals from their immediate past and culture. There was a renaissance of interest in ancient Greek culture at the time that influenced them dramatically. The issue of slavery influenced them. The presence of Native Americans and French. They reached out to find the best in the world and did not exclude that which was not already theirs. That inclusive philosophy was part of the founding.
With all due respect to eloquent and learned Mr. Finch, who I do absolutely respect, I just can not and will not ever concede that the central pillar of our heritage is British Anglo-Puritan 17th century culture.
absentee
So back to the hard work of defining American culture, taking all of the various strands into account...
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
Our viewpoints are so different, it's almost like we're not talking about the same things. But we are. I'll take one last shot at making my perspective understood.
By way of analogy, America is a forest. It seems to me that you are talking mostly about the importance of the trees, and the leaves on the trees, while I'm talking about the vitality of the soil. I think you make some good points about the things we all can see that make America. But it seems almost as if you don't want to acknowledge at all that everything we see in our forest would not exist were it not for the specific quality of the soil in which it stands.
I just do not see how anyone can objectively state that this nation would be anything remotely resembling what it is without the essential nutrients fed into its soil by the lives and deeds of those who envisioned its essences.
Without all of the things that led to Puritans leaving England, there is no Winthrop. Without a Winthrop, there is no idea of a "City on a Hill" and, later, there is no faith in "Divine Providence." There is no American understanding of the tension between "natural liberty" and "civil liberty," nobody would preach or understand omnes sumus licentia deteriores (we are worse for a license). It's clear the French could have used that understanding.
Without the expansion of Calvinism through Great Awakening, there is no American Jeremiad. There is no logical path from the British patriotism that swept colonies after the French and Indian war to a Declaration of Independence a mere 13 years later. The colonies do not reject George III; there is no impetus for it. Without the expansion of Calvinism this is a land with a lot more Quakers, Congregationalists and Anglicans. It is common to be a Tory and difficult to be anything else.
Without the Puritanism and Calvinism that steeped the early New England generations, there is no ipetus for an American version of Great Awakening during the 1730s and 1740s. Our founding fathers and founding generation are not born into a time of revival; they are not raised at a time of expansion and vitality of new and particularly American denominations. There are no American Presbyterians, no Baptists, no Methodists. There is no revolution in the colonies to be derided in the House of Commons and by the King as a "Presbyterian Rebellion."
Without an America with two thirds of its colonial citizens of 1776 being members of new Calvinist denominations, not only is there no revolution, there is no American Exceptionalism, and later there is no Manifest Destiny. There is no lure for others to come and share in a new creation. There is nothing of particular note that would attract other non-British Westerners.
If American Calvinism is never conceived and available to be transmitted to the middle colonies by Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others, there are no mid-Atlantic states. Without it being shepherded to the southern colonies by Baptists and others, there is no fertile soil for implanting ideas that challenge long-accepted impositions of the upper classes. Questioning authority does not become in vogue to lubricate revolution there.
Later, there are no allied churches anywhere for the Federalists to enlist in the cause of ratifying the Constitution.
Without the publication of Puritan and Calvinist sermons that served American Jeremiad, there simply isn't much for the literate American colonist to read. Of course, there is the Bible. But all of Western Civilization had that.
This is the soil.
When we look at the trees, we see early rumblings about emancipation for slaves. We see the themes of the civil rights movement within the language of the Constitutional convention, and later we see those themes become cacophony during the Second Great Awakening. It takes good soil for this sort of stuff to grow.
When we look at the trees, we see many branches that support variety in cuisine, in music, and in the arts. When we look at the trees we can see that much that appears concrete is really only ephemeral, like leaves, subject to the season and subject to the fad. It gives us hope that things like Britney will go the way of the Gong Show.
It takes rich soil to grow a mighty forest. I see no point in expecting an oak to thrive in soil stripped of it's nutrients. I have no interest in wasting my time tending to a forest transplanted into sand.
And here I find the difference between America the mere idea versus America the venerable heritage. The former is planted in sand and subject to the wind. The latter is rooted in and nourished by the soil; I prefer it.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Thank you for this, RE Finch. I don't know if I agree with all of it, but you have made a great case.
Just to make sure I understand the case, if you boil it down to the essential point, it appears to be that you believe American Culture, and therefore American Identity, is rooted in Calvinism.
You may be right. But a couple of questions/points.
1. Calvinism, American Jeremiad, the Great Awakening, etc. are all religious movements. While certainly encompassing a major part of culture, are we to take for granted that the religious conversion also effected a cultural conversion as well?
Meaning, did the great Dutch mercantile houses of New York become culturally less Dutch and more Puritan due to these religious movements? Did the cavaliers of Virginia -- a colony created by the Virginia Company under royal charter -- become culturally different as a result of Baptists taking Calvinists idea down to the South? Dressing differently, speaking differently, with new boundaries on what constitutes proper social mores and folkways?
And later on, as German Lutheran and Irish Catholic immigrants came to these shores, did they adopt Calvinist culture (if such a thing exists) while maintaining all of the traditions of their homelands and modifying them over time to merge into what today would be considered classic Americana? (For example, the hamburger.)
2. Do you consider the deists like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to be cultural figures as well as political ones? Or were they marginalized and not considered as part of the Calvinist cultural fabric in their time? There appears to be a pretty strong case that Ben Franklin, at the very least, was more of a cultural icon as a writer and newspaper publisher than he was a political figure throughout most of his life.
Love your thoughts on these.
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
Sophist, I had a couple thoughts about your first question. I believe that you are looking at the influence of Calvinism (the Puritans) and the Great Awakening in a different manner than RE Finch is. They affected a cultural conversion in the sense of thoughts, ideas, and religion. The Great Awakening, for example, had to happen before the Revolution could occur. The ideas of rights granted by the Creator and the equality (before God, at least) of men was heard by many only in church. Many pastors thundered that disobedience to tyrants was obedience to God. The Revolution didn’t occur in a vacuum, it had to be preceded by a people who were ready to be independent, and the Great Awakening had a big part in that. I don’t think that culture in the sense of customs, traditions, food, clothing, etc. had to be changed in order for the afore mentioned religious movements to have a huge part in the foundation of our country. The German Lutherans and Irish Catholics didn’t have to completely accept “Calvinist culture” as such, because it had become the bedrock of American culture. I don’t know that it played quite as big a part as RE Finch thinks, but I believe that there is no question that it was probably the biggest part of our cultural foundation.
Note: I have edited and expanded my "I Prefer the Soil" response into an essay I posted at my blog at the suggestion of long-time intellectual mentor, of some moderate acclaim for both his classic and contemporary liberal views, with whom I shared it. His reply to me began with the comment, "This is very good and both the religious and anti-religious people today forget it."
In that respect, I think that tcgeol's response above it very helpful; most people today do not have a grasp of how vital a part of American culture religion was in previous generations, and that it still greatly informs who we still are.
As a point of clarification, Calvinism was a broad movement. The Great Awakenings were periods of Calvinist revival during which new denominations arose and, in large part, supplanted America's previously predominant Protestant denominations. The American Jeremiad was a type of sermon specifically designed to unite the people; set and inculcate spiritual and social standards; remind the faithful where they had departed from those standards; and, to express the ideals toward which the faithful should aspire.
So, of course it affected a revolutionary cultural conversion as well. That was its broader intent. During the 1730s and 1740s, with all the new denominations, all the religious fervor, and the conversion of the majority, zeitgeist deeply and permanently affected those exposed to it..including those who later became Deists or whose thinking became more attuned with the Enlightenment. With most Americans living the Bible-centric lives demanded by Calvinism, it took careful thought for the Deist to communicate outside his intellectual peers.
It doesn't appear that any place in America might have escaped Puritan/Calvinist influence. Even early New Amsterdam was one quarter Puritan Huguenot. By the time there were significant numbers of German Lutherans and Irish Catholics here, they did not have to adopt a "Calvinist culture." By the end of the Second Great Awakening in 1840, the artifacts of Puritanism and Calvinism had already been permanently established as anchors in the American social and cultural fabric. It was this fabric to which immigrants were expected, and often rudely compelled, to adopt and assimilate...or leave.
Many historians note that Calvinism's spread was facilitated by the fact that Puritan and Calvinist tradition compelled people to write everything down. It wasn't common for those of different beliefs to do the same. I have read from several sources that we know more about everyday life in early New England thanks to John Winthrop's journal alone than we do about daily life in all of the other colonies of that time combined. One man, Cotton Mather, provided 388 published titles, delivered countless unpublished sermons and left behind unpublished essays that historians now consider fundamentally American.
Literate American colonists didn't have much alternative published material to choose from; almost everything at their disposal had a Calvinist message of some sort in it. And that was even before any Great Awakening. By the time of the Revolution, The People wrote and spoke in language informed by Calvinist constraints. By the time there were enough non-Calvinist newcomers here to make even a minor dissimilar mark, at least 60 years had passed after the revolution. The matter of irreplacable cultural standards had already been fundamentally settled. It's why I have to laugh when I hear people talk about "tolerance" being an important part of what made us.
As far as the Deists are concerned, nearly all of them were born and raised, or at least spent their youth, during a generation of overwhelming revival. If you read the writing of the times, there really isn't anything that wasn't affected by basic Calvinist assumptions. Franklin, for instance, wrote and tried to live up to his 13 virtues. In them you can find the same sorts of impossible expectations that you find in Puritanism and Calvinism.
Within Franklin's virtues are the same sorts of tensions as there are between Natural Liberty and Civil Liberty. In trying to follow them through his life, as he apparently did, Old Ben set himself up for the same sorts of disappointments and failures that drove many of our early Puritan ancestors to the point of insanity. This is what happens when you think too much about man's natural state of depravity in complete liberty juxtaposed with self-imposed constraints, whether it is to please God, to please one's self, or to establish the temperate civil liberty required by a particular faithful society. These are the sorts of tensions that lead men to distrust man's nature enough to devise innovative checks and balances between executive, legislative and judiciary powers.
Jefferson, I think, was a bit of a different animal. Virginia did differ in its Anglican establishment, but it was also affected by Presbyterian protestations, mostly thanks to Samuel Davies' success in spreading the roots of Presbyterianism there. Even Jefferson was still a product of his time and place and could not have avoided being affected by "common knowledge." He lived within it, and while educated a bit insularly, he still had to function in the soup of the times. I think his trying to edit the Bible to his own liking was somewhat an attempt to make peace with the concessions he certainly made to function in his era. Much is still said of Jefferson's use of enlightenment thought in drafting the Declaration; I find it curious that not much is said any more of his deference to big points that are found in the Westminister Confession of Faith, i.e, Prudence, Providence, and the importance of "humble petition" in such matters.
My friend and mentor is right about Calvinism: "both the religious and anti-religious people today forget it." I wonder how much of it is intentional, how much comes from discomfort to the point of denial, and how much of it springs from dull ignorance that contemporary histories facilitate.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Our viewpoints are so different, it's almost like we're not talking about the same things. But we are. I'll take one last shot at making my perspective understood.
By way of analogy, America is a forest. It seems to me that you are talking mostly about the importance of the trees, and the leaves on the trees, while I'm talking about the vitality of the soil. I think you make some good points about the things we all can see that make America. But it seems almost as if you don't want to acknowledge at all that everything we see in our forest would not exist were it not for the specific quality of the soil in which it stands.
I just do not see how anyone can objectively state that this nation would be anything remotely resembling what it is without the essential nutrients fed into its soil by the lives and deeds of those who envisioned its essences.
Without all of the things that led to Puritans leaving England, there is no Winthrop. Without a Winthrop, there is no idea of a "City on a Hill" and, later, there is no faith in "Divine Providence." There is no American understanding of the tension between "natural liberty" and "civil liberty," nobody would preach or understand omnes sumus licentia deteriores (we are worse for a license). It's clear the French could have used that understanding.
Without the expansion of Calvinism through Great Awakening, there is no American Jeremiad. There is no logical path from the British patriotism that swept colonies after the French and Indian war to a Declaration of Independence a mere 13 years later. The colonies do not reject George III; there is no impetus for it. Without the expansion of Calvinism this is a land with a lot more Quakers, Congregationalists and Anglicans. It is common to be a Tory and difficult to be anything else.
Without the Puritanism and Calvinism that steeped the early New England generations, there is no ipetus for an American version of Great Awakening during the 1730s and 1740s. Our founding fathers and founding generation are not born into a time of revival; they are not raised at a time of expansion and vitality of new and particularly American denominations. There are no American Presbyterians, no Baptists, no Methodists. There is no revolution in the colonies to be derided in the House of Commons and by the King as a "Presbyterian Rebellion."
Without an America with two thirds of its colonial citizens of 1776 being members of new Calvinist denominations, not only is there no revolution, there is no American Exceptionalism, and later there is no Manifest Destiny. There is no lure for others to come and share in a new creation. There is nothing of particular note that would attract other non-British Westerners.
If American Calvinism is never conceived and available to be transmitted to the middle colonies by Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others, there are no mid-Atlantic states. Without it being shepherded to the southern colonies by Baptists and others, there is no fertile soil for implanting ideas that challenge long-accepted impositions of the upper classes. Questioning authority does not become in vogue to lubricate revolution there.
Later, there are no allied churches anywhere for the Federalists to enlist in the cause of ratifying the Constitution.
Without the publication of Puritan and Calvinist sermons that served American Jeremiad, there simply isn't much for the literate American colonist to read. Of course, there is the Bible. But all of Western Civilization had that.
This is the soil.
When we look at the trees, we see early rumblings about emancipation for slaves. We see the themes of the civil rights movement within the language of the Constitutional convention, and later we see those themes become cacophony during the Second Great Awakening. It takes good soil for this sort of stuff to grow.
When we look at the trees, we see many branches that support variety in cuisine, in music, and in the arts. When we look at the trees we can see that much that appears concrete is really only ephemeral, like leaves, subject to the season and subject to the fad. It gives us hope that things like Britney will go the way of the Gong Show.
It takes rich soil to grow a mighty forest. I see no point in expecting an oak to thrive in soil stripped of it's nutrients. I have no interest in wasting my time tending to a forest transplanted into sand.
And here I find the difference between America the mere idea versus America the venerable heritage. The former is planted in sand and subject to the wind. The latter is rooted in and nourished by the soil; I prefer it.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
It's hard to deny, although many these days try, that the origins of American culture come predominantly from British threads of Western Civilization. The particular threads were certainly Anglo-Saxon and Norman, but mostly Protestant derivatives of them. They led directly to the ideas and ideals upon which our particular brand of liberty is based.
I think there's far too much contemporary focus on "The Enlightenment" as historically informative. Without the Western Civilization past that led to this subset of ideals, no such enlightenment might have been had or deemed important. Without the conservatism inherent in our nation's Puritan background to temper enlightenment ideals, our revolution may well have more closely resembled what the French dealt themselves.
I see it as being a bit beside the point to over-emphasize incidental differentiating subcultures. For me, it's not exactly a straw man, but it's close. We would have had the most important parts of what we had without the Lutefisk eaters, the Cajuns, and probably even the slaves. I don't want to seem crass in diminishing their importance, but Puritanism would have existed and led to the New England colonies without them. And, it's far more likely than not that two Great Awakenings would have occurred if many of our incidental contributing subcultures had never come to our continent.
Were it not for the subtle and not so subtle continuities of influence that resulted from the lives of the contemporaries and followers of folks like Cotton Mather, John Winthrop, William Penn, John Smith, etc., we'd simply not have what we do. Providence, American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny could never have become widely distributed ideals without British Puritan threads from which such notions are derived; and if we're going to be historically honest, Puritan threads came to dominate all others thanks to two periods of Great Awakening.
I believe that there are lots of past cultural artifacts we might remove from the equation and still end up much as we are today. But we simply could not remove ideals carried from Britain by southern colonists, middle colonists and, most importantly, Puritan New England colonists, and actually have something even remotely resembling what we do. Our liberty is borne too much of American Jeremiad to have become what it is without it.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
I am not sure if you can call it shared cultural heritage at first but it is definitely a shared desire for spiritual, economic and political freedom fro them and their children.
With the passing of time those ideals would become part of their american heritage interspersed with the culture thay came from and the one they are creating.
FredHeads for Fred!
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Let me attempt to help the two of you find some common ground on this issue. I believe that both of you are right. Let me use an analogy to help concrete that statement.
Our culture is like a pyramid
At the base of the pyramid is our history. Not just that of the last several hundred years, but also the preceding events that lead to the creation of America as a nation. See Finch's responses up thread for more on this.
But what we have to remember is that on that foundation lies layers that we continue to add over time. There is the introduction of new cultures into ours such as the influx of German, Irish, Italian, et al influences on our culture.
What I believe to be the problem here is that both of you see our culture as half of this equation. We must remember that both are our culture. I believe that Finch's focus on the foundation of our culture is certainly necessary, but must allow that our culture will change over time. I do certainly believe that we must fight to maintain the foundation of our culture as that which Finch has iterated. Has anyone ever seen a pyramid that had its foundation eroded? Neither have I.
A better view of our culture would be that it is evolving [adding elements from the new entrants] while maintaining much of the historical tradition. What is really failing us here in the United States is that history is not one of our strong suits as a nation. Our students do not learn our history in depth. I can't really say that this is a new thing, because many in my parents generation don't know much about our history. [Certainly no more than the current generation.] Today's generation is enamored by Britney et al, while my parents generation was enamored with the Beatles et al.
What would be a much more worthy endeavor is how do we fight the erosion of the base of our culture? I think that is where Finch's views are of the most use. How do we get the knowledge of our origins out to the generations? I certainly don't have the answers. All I know that I can do is make sure that my son [and any future children] read texts that point to the history of our country and what led to the formation of both America the country and America the ideals.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
My only complaint is that I could not have written that nearly so well!
I think that you have laid out a very well thought out set of principles for discussion.
Proud Member of the Our Candidate is Less Stinky than Yours Party! (OCILSTY 08!)