[MD] the empire

[Ham Priday]

Hello Mel --

> This is an interesting assertion, but I think that the
> picture is backward here.
> Before the 1940's American cities were more of the
> character of aggregates of neighborhoods than anything
> we recognize today.  Many of those were in reality
> self-organized 'ghettos' of ethnicity.  The Italians didn't
> care to mix with the Poles, who didn't want to mix with
> the Germans, who didn't care to be with the Irish...etc
> for all the ethnicities.  Multiculturalism in a self-imposed
> arrangement was the rule, not the exception.

I seem to have set off a firestorm yesterday, and several disgruntled 
liberals have mistakenly read "intolerance" into my comments.  Nothing of 
the sort was intended.  For the record, I am not advocating a return to 
segregation, nor am I impugning the intelligence or character of any 
individual on the basis of race or cultural ancestry.  Readers of my weekly 
Values Page know that I often feature conservative Black writers such as 
Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Shelbey Steele, and my favorite heroine 
of our times is a an ex-Muslim from Somalia named Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

That said, your example of segregated communities of Irish, Poles, and 
Germans at the beginning of the last century is not what is meant today by 
"multiculturalism".  To quote Wikipedia, "Multiculturalism... is aimed at 
recognizing, celebrating and maintaining the different cultures or cultural 
identities within that society to promote social cohesion.  In this context, 
multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to 
distinct cultural and religious groups, with no one culture predominating." 
I submit that "cohesiveness" and "equitable status" did not apply to 
segregated communities, nor was American culture
expected to change in order to accomodate the language, traditions and 
values of these
immigrant populations.

On the contrary, most immigrant families came to our shores to become 
Americans, learn our language, and experience the opportunity we offered. 
This cannot be said of Islamics and Latinos sweeping into the U.S. today who 
expect entitlements before they even become citizens, and who, with the help 
of liberal organizations like the ACLU, are demanding that their host 
country become bilingual and (in the case of Muslims) integate the daily 
call to prayer and laws of Saria into our social structure.  No 
discriminating ("discerning?") citizen can deny that accepting immigrant 
groups who will not assimilate will significantly change America's value 
system.  A sovereign nation has a moral right to preserve its own culture by 
controlling immigration.

> Anyone with a passing knowledge of statistics knows about
> 'normal distributions' and many social scientists are only
> comfortable in that mind-space.  Unfortunately, there are
> 'currents' and 'eddies' in the real world that deliberately
> create non-random distributions.  Students going to college
> is one of these non-random events.  To try and turn a
> student population 'normal' vis society is counter to the
> forces that formed the campus in the first place.

Why should an institution of higher learning define the existing social 
structure?  This seems backward to me.  We should be learning the lessons of 
history, the methods of science, the wisdom of philosophy, and how to reason 
discriminately in our universities so as to become better citizens, not how 
to become radicals and bring down the established culture.  As I pointed 
out, multiculturalism is largely a campus-driven movement, and the fact that 
college professors are predominantly liberal does not bode well for the 
future of this nation.  Again, "The existence of 'political correctness' 
blasts the academics' pretense at valuing real diversity. What they want is 
abject conformity."

> I guess we'll know shortly, although the phrase:
> "diminution of value sensibility" is an interesting one.
> It seems to carry a sense of moral betrayal.

You're damned right it does.

Thanks, Mel.

--Ham