Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah

[Xue Sheng]

I don't know if this occurs in the States but forenames here are used by people to judge what class you are from, not just what religion. You can usually tell how old someone is by just hearing their first name as well as working out how much money they have or are benefits! it's no mistake that The Daily Mail used a survey of names to make it's point.

This may be just me but I have not run into this here in the US.

 

[Empty Hands]

This may be just me but I have not run into this here in the US.

There is to some degree. What do you think of when you hear the name "Joe Bob"? Or "Shaniqua"?

 

[Xue Sheng]

There is to some degree. What do you think of when you hear the name "Joe Bob"? Or "Shaniqua"?

True, I did think of that but based on what tez is saying I do not think it is as easy hear to judge, but then I could be delusional on the topic or just plain wrong.

I'm thinking you can see the name Shaquille or Larry or Wanda, or Ming, or Joe, or Muhammad or Dawn, or Sheri, or Walter, or Shanna, or Michelle or Keith or Jeff or Richard, or Rudy, or Dweezil (OK maybe not Dweezil )and you might get an idea of who that might be, but judging their class, religion and how much money they make... I'm not so sure

Edit:

Billy Bob...rich or poor? Catholic or protestant? upper or lower class?

I don't know and add a last name and it is not so easy

Billy Bob McCoy...well I have no idea.. but I will admit I'm thinking Hatfields and McCoys

Billy Bob Thornton..well that is a bit different

Just a thought

 

[Empty Hands]

Billy Bob...rich or poor? Catholic or protestant? upper or lower class?

Poor, protestant, lower class, from Appalachia or the South. At least, that's the stereotype. You're right of course that it's not as well defined here, but we do have a little.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

No, my question is simple. If X is the problem, then what is the solution to X?

Not sure what you think a "softball" question is, but all it means is that is easy and simple.

All I'm hearing so far is the solution is to not let so much X into the country. That doesn't affect the X already here, or people who become X after they're here, which was the problem described by the original author. Again, if the problem is X, what is the solution to problem X?

Actually it does. It's called enabling. Psychological term, look it up.

A continual influx of large numbers of immigrants in a single generation enables those who are here to not have to assimilate because it allows them to grow huge enclaves where they can exist in pretty much isolation.

I asked what you intend to do about them? I am getting no answer.

You got an answer. You just don't like what you hear, so you rail against it with no real understanding of it.

That's an unsupported assumption. Really unsupported. I don't even know where to begin with that one. The Chinese Exclusion Act resulted in the flow of Chinese migrants to California to come to a complete halt; the result was Chinatown areas in many urban areas. Seems to me that it worked the opposite way.

Are you completely choosing to ignore history, or is it unintentional? Let me see if I can make some historical connections for you. Try to keep up.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted in 1882. When was San Francisco's Chinatown established. In the 1840s. The causation that you are looking for doesn't exist. As you would say, "it's historical fact and cannot be disputed". Not only that, but it does nothing to explain the exact same phenomenon, such as Little Italies, and Greek Towns that rose up when no such immigration halting existed.

But, let's take a look at a place like San Francisco's Chinatown. Despite being a huge tourist mecca for the city, it is one of the poorest sections of the city. Most of the people are either elderly first generation immigrants, or newly arrived first generation immigrants. Those who are integrating are moving out

What caused these places to arise was not a lack of immigration, but housing discrimination and law that only allowed, the Chinese for instance, to live in small particular areas of a city. San Francisco's China town is less then one square mile. Not only that, but when the Chinese moved to escape the discrimination in California, they were not exactly being welcomed with open arms. More housing discrimination, another Chinatown.

But another reason, and certainly a legitimate one, is that newly arrived immigrants who haven't assimilated need a support structure. This is especially true when moving to a completely foreign culture and one that speak a completely different type of language.

So, it would actually be a more likely correlation that due to it's small size and forced comingling of people in these areas with assimilated Americans that the second generation and beyond improved their lot.

As for where it is occuring, just look to Europe and Middle Eastern immigrants. Many countries either have or are looking to possibly implement a Sharia law court. They can literally shut out the court of the host country and implement their own cultural laws exclusive to them.

Because that is happening...uh where again? I mean, I live in the metro Detroit area, and Dearborn is home to the largest Middle-Eastern-origin population outside of the Middle East. Aside from a woman who was running for Congress last term stating that Dearborn was run by Sharia Law (which was quite a surprise to us, let me tell you), what evidence have you that Muslims or Middle-Easterners have 'shut out' anyone in Dearborn? I mean, we're talking about a really really big Middle Eastern population here; I'm just not seeing any shutout, though...

I did say L.A., didn't I? I thought I said that. You wouldn't believe the amount of exclusivity immigrant Mexicans practice. Yes, including attempting to make neighborhoods more Mexican and driving non-Mexicans away.

You have your anecdotal evidence, I have mine.

Wait a minute here. You mean that when a community's residents vote for something ('demanding it' in your parlance) and they get it, that's wrong? I must be unclear on this Democracy thing.

Please, don't put words into my mouth. When I say demanding, I mean demanding, not voting. If I had meant voting, I would have said it.

When thousands of Mexican, not United States citizens, march on the Federal Building in L.A. demanding immigration reform, and influencing my government over the wishes of the greater population of the U.S., that is in no way democracy. In a democracy, there are rules regarding voting. My Congressional Representatives don't represent them, they represent me.

A very interesting mini-rant, and you might find I even have some common ground with you in there somewhere, but all quite aside from the question I asked.

No, it directly related to the question that you asked. You just don't like the answer and ensued with your own historically inaccurate statements and personal anecdotes.

The author of the article stated that there was a problem with non-assimilation. If that is true, what is the solution? I see nothing in your statements above that address that. Nice try at a side-step, though.

That's because you don't want to see it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Easy. Teddy defined it:

Someone who does not...

at heart feel more sympathy with Europeans (or other nation/culture) of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic

And someone who adheres to our laws and not some other cultural/religious system of law.

Not so easy, actually.

Teddy didn't 'define it'. The term 'hyphenated American' was a popular buzzword around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries in the USA. It had a lot of meanings, and Teddy just defined for himself a particular meaning.

It also meant (according the Anglo American Society), anyone who was Catholic, Irish, or God help us, Catholic and Irish. Fact. It also meant (to them) anyone who was "anti-expansion, anti-imperialist, anti-English, or pro-Boer. How's them apples?

It also meant, according to the Deseret, the magazine of the Church of Latter Day Saints, anyone who was a member of the British-American Society and were currently (according to them) attempting to pin crimes on Irish-American citizens and the government for having recently appointed a British citizen to the post of Ambassador to Chile after having replaced a German citizen who had taken American citizenship.

The book "Slang and Its Analogues," published in 1893, defined 'Hyphenated American' as meaning: "A naturalized citizen, such as German-Americans, Irish-Americans, and the like."

The magazine "Public Opinion" by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, had something to say about the situation in the USA in 1899:

We are told that prominent German Republicans in Chicago are advising President McKinley that if the present policy of expansion is persisted in the Republican party will lose the German vote in 1900. This country is not disposed to listen to the advice of Germans, Irishmen, Englishmen, Spaniards, Italians, or people of whatsoever race. If the German-Americans choose to raise such an issue as this; to challenge the American in his own home on a question of loyalty to America, or loyalty to Germany and German ideals, we believe America is ready for the issue, and we believe the German will for the first time in his life find out how many Americans there are in this country. Any race within the republic that acts as a unit is a danger to the republic. It becomes an imperium in imperio. In our great strength and our great love for freedom we have perhaps been too careless of this in the past. Captain Coghlan, from his experience abroad, warned us of the danger of these "European colonies," as he stigmatized the hyphenated American citizens, telling us that surely they would do us harm if we allowed them their way. We might take a lesson of Germany itself, which so savagely suppresses ail languages but the German language; so fiercely proscribes all customs but German customs; so insistently Germanizes everything under its control. We do not know of anything that would cause a greater rally to President McKinley and his policy than such threats as these that we have been discussing.

We might take a note from history and discover that despite nothing having been done in the early 1900's to make illegal being 'German-American' or forcing English to be spoken in the home, etc, as the writer demanded, we seem to have remained un-taken-over by Germany.

And of course, I must note that even your own description of what President Roosevelt meant when he said:

at heart feel more sympathy with Europeans (or other nation/culture) of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic

...is not how the quote is used today, is it? It is not quoted and then explained to mean just that - people whose loyalties lay elsewhere. No, it is used as a general pejorative for anyone who has an cultural identification at all. If a person's ancestry is Irish or German or Mexican or Polish or Iraqi and they are proud of it and refer to themselves as an Irish-American (or etc), then they are hammered down and told that NO, they must reject such things and be a PURE AMERICAN and NOTHING ELSE. Even if all their loyalty lies with the USA, they are just demonstrating pride in their familial origin, that hoary old quote from Roosevelt is trotted out as if that's what he meant when he said it. Of course, that is not what he meant when he said it, as you have made clear yourself.

I agree with Roosevelt; people who take US citizenship should be loyal to the USA and to no other country! But calling themselves 'Mexican-Americans' is not the same as saying they are loyal to Mexico and not the USA. Some would pretend it does.

Taking pride in their cultural heritage, preserving their language and traditions, keeping their own cuisine, customs, and values, none of these things preclude them from being loyal US citizens and NOTHING ELSE. But some would pretend that it does. Teddy never said that. People twist his words to make it seem that he said that.

And of course, it is selectively applied - then and now. Then, it was applied to Irish-Americans (by Anglo-Americans, hahahaha how ironic) and to German-Americans (by Canadians!). Now it is applied to Mexican-Americans and Muslims who are American citizens or legal residents - by others who have no problem being of Irish heritage or German heritage or Polish heritage or no heritage in particular.

I'm of Welsh extraction myself. I feel no loyalty to Wales, but I have a Welsh flag at home. I think it's neat. I think Wales is a cool country. I like it. I don't speak Welsh, but my ancestors did. I guess they were 'hyphenated Americans', eh? Bad, bad, people. I should be ashamed of them. And if they had managed to keep some of their traditions or language intact and pass it down to me, why, we'd all be disloyal, treacherous dangers to the USA who ought to be savagely suppressed for the good of the nation. RIGHT?

And of course, I have to complete by asking once again - assuming you are right and I am wrong and being a hyphenated American is a bad thing - what is your proposed solution?

I'm still waiting to hear the solution.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, it directly related to the question that you asked. You just don't like the answer and ensued with your own historically inaccurate statements and personal anecdotes.

I don't like the answer because you have not yet answered.

I asked what you think we should do about it, presuming the author was right. You did not answer that, you embarked on a mini-rant about the dangers of multi-culturalism. Yes, yes, multi-culturalism bad. I get it. Now, what do you propose to do about it?

If you answer, I can tell you what I think about your answer. Thus far, you have refused to answer a very basic question.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

However, as I've ever argued whenever we've touched upon this subject, the pace of change has to be managed - it is reckless to leave things to their own devices when you are putting the stability of your society on the table.

One must ask how this management is to be done? Immigration law changes? OK, but again, it does not touch upon those who 'refuse to assimilate' and are already here (or there in the UK) and are citizens or legal residents already.

Of course, a question that is begged by the comments made in this thread is why is it assumed to be a given that other people have a right to move into the country of someone else? My opinion is that they don't - that's why most sensible countries have immigration policies after all.

No one has a right to live anywhere, until it is given by the authority of a nation. Most nations have immigration policies of some sort, and they are generally managed, as you point out.

I'm not sure how that will correct the ills you describe; the pockets of your nation where immigrants of one sort or another outnumber the 'local' residents.

Of course, one can manage populations already in place if need be. In the USA, we have the example of the Trail of Tears.

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

The term 'ethnic cleansing' is also sometimes bandied about - even if stripped from the implied use of deadly force to merely 'require' undesirables to leave for greener pastures instead of actually killing them.

It's also used against those of us who happen to be Christian and / or white, of European origin, and currently living in certain nations in majority Islamic societies; which of course means if they do it, we should do it. Right?

Please tell us which of these alternatives you find most desirable in the current situation.

Again, you aptly describe the problem, but seem to offer no solution other than 'limit immigration'. I'm still waiting for an answer to the current problem you define.

 

[Archangel M]

I dont think that Teddy was being critical or the use of the "term" (X-American) as much as he was critical of the mentality and practice of X>American.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I dont think that Teddy was being critical or the use of the "term" (X-American) as much as he was the mentality and practice of X>American.

Quite right. I think you misunderstood me.

Teddy meant what he defined - and you quoted. To him, a 'hyphenated American' was one whose loyalties were to another country. Thus, an "Irish-American," though born or naturalized a US citizen, who was loyal to Ireland, was a problem for him.

That is very different from the use the term is put to today, which is to mean an "Irish-American" is one who merely takes pride in his or her ancestry. Teddy didn't say that and didn't mean that - by your own quote. Yet that is what is put forth as if it was his opinion of those who call themselves X-American with 'X' meaning whatever nation one's ancestors came to the USA from.

I also noted that the term 'hyphenated American' has been used by many before and since Teddy Roosevelt, and many different descriptions have been used for it; Teddy did not coin the phrase nor attach the initial meaning to it. As I noted, the original definition of the slang term 'hyphenated American' merely meant one who was a naturalized US citizen. Thus, any immigrant who became a citizen was a hyphenated American and could not be anything else; only his or her children would be free of that description.

So again; Teddy had no problem with people who were from X, Y, or Z country and were proud of that fact. He had a problem - by your own quote - with people whose loyalty was to a nation other than the USA. I would agree with that; people who take US citizenship should have no loyalty to another country.

Again I ask, though...presuming that such is the case and that recent immigrants to the USA harbor loyalties to their country of origin; what is to be done about it? Still waiting on that answer...

 

[Archangel M]

I would posit that that is not the case in SOME of our "hyphinated sub-cultures" especially when a religion is what is on the left of the hyphen....but even in the "cultural pride" use of the hyphen, I don't think that THAT is especially healthy either. I am an American of Italian heritage. Im proud of that, but I don't speek Italian, I have never been to Italy...I am an American.

 

[elder999]

I am an American of Italian heritage. Im proud of that, but I don't speek Italian, I have never been to Italy...I am an American.

And you're no more "American" than those "Americans of Italian heritage" that speak Italian and have been to Italy.............
.......hell, I can stumble a little in Italian, and LOVE Italy, but I don't have a drop of Italian blood, AFAIK.....

If Bill spoke Welsh, or I spoke Bantu, or you spoke Italian, would that make us "less American?"

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would posit that that is not the case in SOME of our "hyphinated sub-cultures" especially when a religion is what is on the left of the hyphen....but even in the "cultural pride" use of the hyphen, I don't think that THAT is especially healthy either. I am an American of Italian heritage. Im proud of that, but I don't speek Italian, I have never been to Italy...I am an American.

Then let us define it. If one is of Italian ancestry, one may be proud of it. If one speaks Italian, or has been to Italy, then one is an 'Italian-American' and that is a danger to our society. Is that correct?

I am re-reading Roosevelt's entire statement right now. I will post on this shortly. It turns out that he was very much against, for example, German-Americans, whom he called 'hyphenated Americans'. But he was of German ancestry himself, and he did not have a problem with that. He also pointed out the many excellent Americans he knew who were themselves of German descent.

He did *NOT* say whether or not they spoke German in the home, practiced German traditions, sang German songs (except one, Deutchsland Uber Alles, which I'd agree with as well) and otherwise identified themselves as being of German ancestry and proud of it.

His problem was with those who put the welfare of their nations of origin over the USA. And quite right.

What you describe seems to be somewhat less than that; it's OK to be from Italy, but one may not call oneself Italian-American? I suppose eating pizza is out, then? Singing Frank Sinatra songs? Watching "The Godfather" on TV? Celebrating Columbus Day?

At what point would you say that being of Italian heritage becomes a danger to our country, other than Roosevelt railed against, which was having an actual loyalty to the Italian nation over that of the USA?

When the 'hyphenated American' argument is brought up in the current day, it seems to me to be leveled against both Mexicans and Middle-Easterners in the USA; and not just about their loyalties, real or suspected; but against them retaining any trace of their national heritage, from language to song to food to dress to mannerisms to their 'refusal to assimilate'.

Roosevelt had nothing to say about those things; his ire was aimed at those who had literal loyalty to a country other than the USA after becoming US citizens. I agree with him. I wish people weren't twisting his words so badly...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Teddy Roosevelt on "Hyphenated Americans:"

Theodore Roosevelt said: "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts 'native' before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."

—T. Roosevelt, Fear God and take your own part, pp. 361-363.

I agree with Roosevelt's statements.

He was clear what he meant by a 'hyphenated American', though. He did not mean, nor did he mention, men and women who preserve the traditions of their culture, speak the language, eat the food, wear the dress, or embrace the religion of their place of origin. He was quite clear - he meant those who have loyalty to the nation they come from over that of the United States. And rightly so.

But we see the quotation "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism," and then it is applied out-of-context, to those who 'refuse to assimilate', which is to mean that they speak Spanish or Farsi in the home, or they cling to the traditions and culture of their homeland, or they live together with each other in groups, spurning excessive contact with the outside world, or vote in as groups on matters that concern them as a group. They are called 'hyphenated Americans' for daring to consider themselves 'Mexican-American' or 'Iraqi-American' as if that mere statement meant that they had an allegiance to that nation of their origin.

And again - even presuming for a moment that anyone who dared to call themselves Irish-American or Catholic-American or Greek-American was in fact beholden to their original nation and loyal to it - even Teddy Roosevelt didn't have an answer as to what ought to be done about it, other than to state that they 'ought to go home.'

That's it? There is nothing else that can be done? We're back to the same question I asked earlier in this thread - if the author of the article quoted in the OP is right, what is to be done about it? I still await any kind of an answer...even Teddy didn't have one...

The history of fear of foreigners is interesting to me. It comes around every so often. It strikes like a disease, and it stirs up hatred and anger, mainly because we're all afraid, and we need someone to be afraid of, some threat we can put a face on, instead of realizing that there is no one unified 'enemy' out there we can stick a pin to and label and then dispose of.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not all threats are from outside and/or from other cultures... we would all like to think they are though... it is easier that way

I got a bad rep for the above... now that is funny

To whoever you are if are going to give me a bad rep about something at least have the guts to say you did it and sign it not just write

“Way to inject your racism into the discussion”

and then run away to hide in the annonimity of the web...and then give yourself a big pat on the back because you sure told me You know back when I was studying terrorism in college it never dawned on me it was racism

And please explain to me just HOW any of the links I provided are racism

And Article from Wikipedia on Domestic terrorism in the United States
A Link to the Global Terrorism database
Another to Rand Objective Analysis
And another from Wikipedia which is a List of designated terrorist organizations

whoever you are you are damn funny

You might actually try clicking the links and reading them next time before you play the racist card

 

[Blade96]

I got a bad rep for the above... now that is funny

To whoever you are if are going to give me a bad rep about something at least have the guts to say you did it and sign it not just write “Way to inject your racism into the discussion” and run away to hide in the annonimity of the web...and then give yourself a big pat on the back because you sure told me You know back when I was studying terrorism in college it never dawned on me it was racism

And please explain to me just HOW any of the links I provided are racism

And Article from Wikipedia on Domestic terrorism in the United States
A Link to the Global Terrorism database
Another to Rand Objective Analysis
And another from Wikipedia which is a List of designated terrorist organizations

whoever you are you are damn funny

You might actualyl try clicking the links and reading them next time before you paly the racist card

Whatta wuss, eh?

btw I dont think there's anything racist about saying some threats come from within and not from outside.

 

[Sukerkin]

Just a quick note with my Mentors hat on to remind people that whilst giving negative Rep unisgned is poor form, so is discussing negative Rep in-thread.

We all know that not being able to respond is frustrating but by having that rule in place we prevent all kinds of nastiness spilling out in public view.

 

[Blade96]

Just a quick note with my Mentors hat on to remind people that whilst giving negative Rep unisgned is poor form, so is discussing negative Rep in-thread.

We all know that not being able to respond is frustrating but by having that rule in place we prevent all kinds of nastiness spilling out in public view.

well how about, letting the personwho received the poor form respond, and then no more discussion on it? wouldnt that work? It'll let the person respond, and prevents the hissy fit. Cause i have also responded in post too when that happened to me.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Wow.

I don't like the answer because you have not yet answered.

I asked what you think we should do about it, presuming the author was right. You did not answer that, you embarked on a mini-rant about the dangers of multi-culturalism. Yes, yes, multi-culturalism bad. I get it. Now, what do you propose to do about it?

If you answer, I can tell you what I think about your answer. Thus far, you have refused to answer a very basic question.

Wow. You really don't like facts when they conflict with your ideology, do you? You always just run away, exclaiming "you didn't answer my question."

I show you a solution, you give patently incorrect historical information to support a rebuttal. I then go to show historical fact showing that what I said would work,, that the information you stat was false, and you just whine about how I'm not answering the question

Your not looking for an answer, because you are tied to the idea that there isn't one.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just a quick note with my Mentors hat on to remind people that whilst giving negative Rep unisgned is poor form, so is discussing negative Rep in-thread.

We all know that not being able to respond is frustrating but by having that rule in place we prevent all kinds of nastiness spilling out in public view.

I understand you’re POV and if the rep was hey you’re a jerk I may have let it slide and if it was signed I would have handled it very differently but calling me a racist is a whole other issue if you’re going to hit and run frankly you should be called on it.

Poor form indeed, don't get me started.