.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Monday, August 14, 2006

Assimilation

"We Americans have proven much better at assimilating immigrants than have most other nations—if you are disturbed by Latino demonstrations in Los Angeles, look at the Muslim riots and murders in Western Europe. But some of our elites have soured on, in Theodore Roosevelt's word, Americanization. Education elites have produced bilingual education, which too often is neither bilingual nor education. Immigrants' children need to learn to speak, read and write in English. Political and judicial elites have mandated bilingual ballots—even though applicants for citizenship need to show they've mastered English. Transnational elites, to use Professor Samuel Huntington's word, have taught a version of American history that treats the Founding Fathers solely as slaveholders and tells us nothing about World War II but the internment of Japanese Americans. They want to encourage immigrants to remain in separate and oppositional cultural enclaves. As Theodore Roosevelt said a century ago, immigrants—and all of our children—need to learn and appreciate the American heritage, the brilliant work of the Founders, our expansion of freedoms and our vibrant system of representative government. American adults are snapping up copies of books about the Founders. American children, and especially immigrants' children, need to learn the lessons of the Founders, too." —Michael Barone

A Heavyhanded punditry: Multiculturalism begets isolation. Isolation begets disillusionment, and ultimately unrest.

2 Comments:

  • Good summary H-H!

    As usual, the Libs have taken a valid idea and extended it beyond reason.

    It is correct to say that no one should be excluded from a group on the unrelated and arbitrary basis of race, ethnicity, religion, et al as these characteristics do not impact on an individuals potential value to whatever purpose that group may aspire. It is quite another thing to say that the group with the greatest diversity of race, ethnicity, religion, et al will, therefore, be the best equipped to achieve that purpose.

    Yet, this is the position the Libs promote. Colleges advertise the quality of the education they offer on the basis of the diversity of their faculty and student body rather than on the academic credentials of their faculty and the subsequent achievements of their alumina. Illegal Immigration is supported because it will expand the diversity of our citizenry as opposed to legal immigration which focuses on expanding the quality and productivity of our citizenry. Government administrations are judged by how diverse is their membership rather than on how well they advanced the ideas on which they campaigned and were elected; (except, of course, if a Republican administration is more diverse than any preceding Democrat administration).

    Diversity is not a worthwhile goal in and of itself. True, a lack of diversity ‘may’ be indicative of unwarranted discrimination but the presence of diversity neither disproves unwarranted discrimination, (Affirmative Action?), nor advances worth. If you face open heart surgery, are you more interested in the cultural diversity of the operating team or in their experience and history? Unwarranted discrimination is morally wrong, (deal with that Moral Relativists), and counter productive to the extent that it may preclude desirable talent. For those reasons we should not be opposed to diversity but advancing diversity for its own sake accomplishes nothing other than to get Democrats elected and allow Liberals to think oh so well of themselves.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:16 PM  

  • Well said, as usual, anotmo. But then, I would expect no less.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 7:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home