Timothy Birdnow
When I was in college (back in the mid '80's) the catch phrase was "multiculturalism" and it was heavily promoted by the humanities and social science departments at the university (Saint Louis University). I hadn't really given the subject much thought until I was forced to write a paper on cultural diversity for an anthropology class I was taking (run by a truly radical Greek woman). This particular professor was fanatical on the subject. I outsmarted her; my paper - and oral presentation - was a work I had written for a Russian history class, and it got me an A with no work. I was careful to avoid giving my true opinion of multiculturalism.
I was shocked when I learned exactly what was meant by multiculturalism. I had naively assumed (I was still in my teens, after all) that this simply meant celebrating other cultures and being open to them r- like wearing a "kiss me I'm Irish" button on St. Patrick’s Day and drinking green beer. What the Progressives meant by multiculturalism was something quite different.
They meant the creation of completely independent cultures inside of one nation.
These crazy liberals actually believed that a country could and should exist with two or more nations coexisting inside the same space. Like the Balkans. It was their notion that America could stop being a melting pot and become a salad, with a whole bunch of different, diverse groups existing as they saw fit. They wanted to turn America from a nation into an EMPIRE. History had taught these fools nothing.
Or it had taught them plenty. Empires collapse; it's what they do. When times are good they manage, but the friction between the different peoples is ever present and festers. When some sort of crisis arises - and it often arises from those very frictions as in the Austro-Hungarian empire when Serbian nationalists assassinated the Crown Prince - there is nothing to hold the peoples together. Some may ally against a common threat, but they will be just as quick to turn on each-other. There is no cohesion, no sense of shared identity that makes the populace stand together.
During the Second World War American soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder and bled and died for each-other. Now, these Americans may have been white, black, Hispanic, native American. They may have been Jewish, Christian, Hindu, even Muslim or atheist. They may have been from disparate places and had accents strange to their friends. But they were first and foremost Americans, with shared American experiences, a shared history, shared cultural values. Each and every one of them believed in America, in the Constitution, in faith and in family. Most believed in the free market and in the ballot box. The differences between them were cosmetic, a kind of spice that made the soup more tasty. They did not identify themselves as separate groups.
But that is the goal of multiculturalism; to turn our soup to salad. The multiculturalists believe that the individual groups should be separate, distinct, defined, and independent. They should be NATIONS, separate but equal, inside of a country.
Look how well that has worked historically. Where is the Austro-Hungarian Empire? The Russian Empire, or it's successor, the Soviet Union? What happened to Rome? The Mongol empire? The Caliphate? Why did Cortez conquer Mexico so easily? Why did Pizzaro take down the Incans? These were all empires, forced associations of disparate and not especially friendly peoples. When the winds blew they fell, because those peoples would not stand together.
It's why India fell to the British.
We see this today. A casual look at Africa should suffice to disabuse one of the notion of multiculturalism; most African nations are hell-holes, and their problems are because they are artificial constructs with different tribes forced into a political union. It is why Iraq was so difficult to rebuild, why Afghanistan is still a hot war zone.
Granted, there are nations that defy this objection. Switzerland has three languages, Belgium two, Canada two. But Switzerland has a shared history and common culture, Belgium likewise. Canada has been terribly hard to hold together, with the French-speaking Quebec forever threatening to break the union. And none of these nations are great powers, because too much energy is expended on holding them together. Canadians are a very polite people - they have to be to avoid giving offense to the other culture - but Canada cannot be considered a world leader. Leaders can't lead when they spend their time trying to avoid giving offense.
So multiculturalism is a loser, a concept designed (knowingly or otherwise) to weaken and dismantle a nation.
Which is why I found this interesting. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/torture-of-african-children-f... (Hat tip; James Lewis at American Thinker. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/socially_acceptable_hatred_c...)
Seems that African immigrants to Britain are practicing witchcraft and torturing - and murdering - children.
This should surprise nobody; many African religious traditions involve witchcraft, and so why should they not practice their traditions in jolly old England? Isn't that the whole point of multiculturalism? Assimilation is not only unnecessary in the multiculturalism paradigm but actually a bad thing. What right has a multicultural society to impose their moral constraints on an immigrant people?
Europe has seen the rise of Islamic ghettos, and Sharia is being practiced in those ghettos, trumping the national law. Who is to say they can't cut off the hand of a thief? Stone an blasphemer? Cut off the head of an adulteress? It's THEIR law, their custom, and if we are to be true to the principles of multiculturalism we must accept these actions. Who are we to JUDGE!
The fallacious assumption is that all cultures are valid, and equal. This is clearly not the case; a cannibal tribe is morally, culturally, and socially inferior to, say, an Amish settlement. There are objective criteria that may be applied. Yes, those criteria come to us from our own culture, but that hardly invalidates them, as our own culture developed those norms over time through an arduous process of stamping out bad practice, and from natural law and revealed religion. Eating people - bad. Shrinking heads - bad. Slavery - bad. Torture - bad. We did all of those things in the past, and have learned to abhor them as despicable. Many cultures have not developed such maturity. The Islamic world still cuts off body parts or stones women who are raped. We have every right, nay a duty, to denounce that sort of thing.
Which makes our culture superior. If our culture is superior, do we not have a right to expect those who wish to join us, who wish to live among us, enjoy the benefits our culture has produced, to adopt that culture? It was a given in bygone days, but is now open for debate - especially among the pointy-headed intellectual class. (Intellectuals would debate the need to use the toilet if the topic came up; nothing is ever obvious to many of them.)
It's time for a little more uniculturalism. I propose we begin a new campaign, one designed to reverse the last thirty years and celebrate unilateralism, celebrate the beauty of one nation UNDER GOD. It's time we revive our Judeo-Christian heritage, our sense of cultural and national homogeneity. The experiment in multiculturalism has failed. It has failed in Africa, in Asia, in Europe, and is now failing here.
Barack Obama was, perhaps, a symbol of the triumph of multicultural thinking. The man had a multicultural ethnic heritage, a multicultural upbringing, and has ridden the wave of multiculturalism from one cushy job to another, culminating in his becoming President. He was never qualified for anything he did, but he was pushed along as part of the wave of multicultural thinking. His election showed that the public had bought into this nonsense, and his Presidency has been the disaster many of us predicted from the start. We knew this would be the case, because the entire Obama phenomenon was based on a lie. Obama was not and is not an American; he is a man who has lived in America, but America has never lived in him. He was raised as an alien inside of the United States. The matter of his birth certificate is ultimately a technicality; he may or may not have been born here, and it matters for his eligibility to hold office, but the man's whole life was outside of his erstwhile country. He was a multicultural icon.
And he has performed a valuable service to America by showing the utter bankruptcy of multiculturalism.
We stand at a crossroads; do we want to continue down the path to Imperium, to a land held together by force of arms courtesy of the central government, or do we return our country to a nation, a brotherhood of like-minded men and women, different but together? Are we to be a family again, or a group of mutual strangers? The Democrats offer that path, the path of group identity, of group rights, of celebration for diversity (code for division)? Family members are all individuals but part of the whole, while what the Left offers are group relationships divorced from the whole. Which will it be?
The Left cannot even stand each-other; the Bolsheviks fought the Mensheviks and the S.R.'s in pre-revolutionary Russia. Leon Trotsky finished his life with an ice pick in his head in Mexico, where he had fled for sanctuary. Communists fought Fascists to the death. This sort of infighting is where group rights and group think lead. Why should we expect different results in America?
Read more from Tim at www.tbirdnow.mee.nu
Comment
Comment by Barry Gabrielson on September 11, 2012 at 1:47pm Bob, Im with you. If the Communist lose, they will say that this was stolen, they must blame someone. I find is very disturbing that when you look into this fraud in the oval office past, you find communist and radical connections everywhere you go. His father was a Communist, same with him mentor Davis. He is friends with terriorists, numerous friends with a list of people who hate America. Yet, many are aware of his past, that he is spending millions to cover-up his Communist past and future, his inexperience, his fundemental transformation from Capitalism to Communism. And yet, Democrats are going to vote for him, accept terriorts ties to Muslim brotherhood, he is a Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Semetic, anti-Israel, pro illegal immigration, anti-Constitution and the rule of law. Everything that makes America great he is against. How can people vote for a man who hates them? Answer, ENTITLEMENTs, money is all the matters, not morality. People have lost their way, pushed away from religion into "You owe me so pay up" attitude. Im oppressed so Im owed. This behavior is not only sick and immature, its immoral. That is 1/2 of America today, the Land of "You owe me, my civil rights to taken care of from cradle to grave. Its either Capitalism and freedom or Communism and the destruction of the USA in 2012. Those who vote for Communism in 2012 will all be held accountable at judgment day, each and every last one of them.
Comment by PC Bob on September 11, 2012 at 12:53pm The Communist Party began taking over the Democrat Party at least as far back as the 50's. They are now locked in solid. Most members are not even aware of the takeover. They still think it's the party of their and their parents childhood. Nothing could be further from the truth. The communist's have done a thorough job of brainwashing and the memebrs believe ALL the lies they have been told about the Republican party. The Republican party is not filled with saints, either. Infact, part of the Communist's plan for 1963 was to take over BOTH parties, and I think they have been quite successful in that effort. Being cought in the middle we really have little choice, since the Republican Party is, so far, the only group with enough testicular fortitude to stand up to the Dems. Fact is, BOTH parties are flawed and aligned against us all. We have been too lax and complacent over the past century or so, allowing our enemies to creep in, almost unnoticed, and take over our government from within. Obama was a Trojan horse, made up to look like a Black Saviour, and the blacks bought it, hook line and sinker. Now, the invading armies are within our walls, biding their time. How else can you explain the electing of an avowed, lifelong Communist? One who was sired and raised by Communist's, associated ONLY with Communists's (in his own words) seeking them out and avoiding contact with ALL 'normal' people. Then hiding his past in a frenzied effort to keep us off his trail. Then, telling us that the only people who hide their past are people with something to hide! Right in our faces! Yet on one, not the blacks, not the media, not even John McCain would call him out on his past! Are they all complicit? Possibly. The government is preparing for civil unrest on a massive scale, should Obama lose the re-election. I see a dark and foreboding future ahead for America. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but the realist in me thinks otherwise.
Comment by Barry Gabrielson on September 11, 2012 at 11:27am PC Bob, you are correct. Van Jones (Communist) said is quike clearly. To destroy American, do it top down bottom up and inside out. You must take over power at the top (communist adminstration), have votes praising and voting Communism (Democratic party), destroy religion and traditional family values (democratic party), keep abortion (Democratic Party), have Government take over business (Democratic party). Allow and support Illegal Immigration to take over Political Power (Democratic Party). Demonize business, promote hate, guilt, envy, class warfare, victims and oppressed (Democratic Party), promote what Hitler said Hope and Change (Democratic Party), demonize white people and rich people (Democratic party). Illegal is good, judgment is evil of illegal and immoral behavior (democratic party), go against the majority (Democratic party). IN 2012, if this Communist is elected and people still dont care, we are done as a nation.
Comment by PC Bob on September 11, 2012 at 11:08am I left California in 1996, moving to the Midwest. When I left, one of my neighbors, a Mexican lady, told us that the plan was to move so many Mexicans into California that they would outnumber the Gringos, and they would then just take it over, for Mexico. It's sort of the same thing, having a huge population of 'foreign' people, separate from the rest, with their own laws, etc. It looked to me like they were doing a great job of it, too.
The idea of America being a melting pot worked very well for many years. It depended on the immigrants 'melting' into our society, learning our laws, our ways, our language and finally becoming American citizens. Initially, they may have clanned together with others from their country for moral support, but eventually they moved out of their ghettos and joined the rest of our society. After two or more generations they looked and acted like most everyone else. For some strange reason, though, certain ethnic groups defied this process, remaining in their segregated communities, keeping their old languages and ways of living, avoiding the final step of becoming an American. Now, in their quest to seek 'multiculturalism', as described here, they are at odds with this countries morals and values, insisting, instead, that WE adopt theirs! But, WE didn't decide to live in THEIR country; it was THEY who decided to live here, in OUR country! America kisses NO ONE'S butt, and we sure aren't going to kiss theirs, either! If anyone, including our potus, thinks we should they just might get THEIRS kicked!
We have long had these groups in our midst, such as the Amish, the Yiddish and the LDS. But none of these groups seek the overturn of our nation and our government. They are peaceful folks and co-exist peacefully with us. There are others, however, who's stated mission in life is the destruction of ANYONE who does not believe as they do. These are not peaceful folks, but, rather, potential enemies of or nation, our values and our very lives. The question them becomes; WHY do we have these people, potential time-bombs, living in our midst, waiting for the cal from whomever? The woman in Tennessee should be a wake up call, she let the cat out of the bag. We weren't supposed to know this! WE are craftily being invaded from within. What will be the critical point? Who will signal to these groups that the time for jihad has begun? While we sit placidly by, watching American Idol, pretending that multiculturalism is a 'GOOD' thing.
Comment by John Henry Botkin on September 10, 2012 at 9:16am The signers of the Declaration of Independence understood a prime self evident truth.
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The self evident truth contained within that sentence? One people have a God-given right to independence from another people and also have a corresponding obligation to demonstrate respect to other peoples by declaring their reasons and intents. Our nation rested upon that truth. We have fallen into treason against that truth by balkanizing ourselves; we have lost all protection of Natural Law. We became whores appealing to the virtue of whoredom.
Comment by Richie Laxton on September 10, 2012 at 3:05am Anyone who is glad to put a hyphen in front of American to describe themselves, has not yet understood what it means to be an American.
Comment by Barry Gabrielson on September 9, 2012 at 10:29pm
Comment by William Homolka on September 9, 2012 at 10:20pm This article is the best I've seen on the subject - and I've seen [too] many. We should keep these ideas in mind after we remove Obama, by whatever means he forces us to use, and start dismantling the progressive machinery. We have our work cut out for us.
Comment by Rondo on September 9, 2012 at 10:08pm While analogy can clarify, it is never a replacement for solid logical argument substantiated by facts. So, while I like the "soup" and "salad" analogies, we are neither as it is too complex to codify in such simple analogies. I haven't read all the replies to this blog entry. So, at the risk of repeating some idea already given, I offer that we don't need to go to Europe, or the world history of empires to see why they always fail even if a strong central authority is in charge for a time.
The term Native American is often used to stand in for all the tribes and cultures of indigenous natives in both the northern and southern continents of the western hemisphere. Jarrod Diamond wrote "Guns Germs and Steel" to challenge the historical record of how the western hemisphere was conquered by the European powers. With only a marginal technical and numerical advantage, all of the western Native American nations and tribes were subjugated.
Diamond began his book asking why the Aztecs or some other advanced civilization in the Western hemisphere had not conquered the Europeans. The fact is that along with a set of technical disadvantages, the cultures in the "Native American" hemisphere were very different. There were some alliances but nothing that ever approached a unifying culture. All of the northern and southern western hemi-sphere was a patch work quilt of separate tribes, and nations that often spent time killing each other in war and genocidal exterminations.
The Disney images of all these people being united in balance with nature, and in communion with mother earth is a lie. The Cameron AVATAR notions presented are also liberal hog wash. Pandora was a moon covered in living plant, animal, and evolved blue humanoids. In AVATAR, we are taken down the “Fern Gully lane” in a fairy tale of nonsense, that, although entertaining, provides nothing in the way of showing why the blue people were victims of the white capitalist exploiting their planet moon.
These stories are great for kids and even entertaining for adults and also totally useless in explaining why multiculturalism as it is defined on the left is a backward step from where we are. So, the irony of the DNC's catch phrase "FORWARD" needs to be further explained to show that the direction of their compass is "BACKWARD". They are wanting to take us FORWARD in a BACKWARD directional destination. Taking this nation "FORWARD" into their idea of multiculturalism is taking it back to the 15th century of North America.
as I see it, a Vietnam Vet,
Ron
Comment by Bruce O'H. on September 9, 2012 at 5:50pm Thank you for this excellent explanation of multiculturalism. I'm bookmarking this blog for future referral.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!
Join Tea Party Nation