I just reviewed Pat Buchanan's newest book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America in another thread. With the idea of starting this thread, I did not address one of the key themes in the book.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=204414

Buchanan argues that common cultural elements (in his view, those derived from Western Europe) -"race, faith, ethnicity, and history" (page 248) are what make a nation. He rejects what he calls a propositional nation, that is, one held together by ideals such as liberty and self-government derived from the constitution and laws. He says that the latter view is held by people like historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Questions for Debate:

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?

2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?

From very early on in British American settlement, Americans have expressed both a commitment to a vision of an American exceptionalism that makes us unique as a people and we have sought to exclude or suborn those we deem not to embrace mainstream values or share cultural identity.

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?

I disagree with those who argue that American-ness is defined closer to ethnic nationalism than civic nationalism. Although many of the traditions that dominate the foundation of our society our from British civilization (language, common law, property rights, protected freedoms, representative government) being of British descent does not make more American than others.

The strongest bond holding the United States together through its history is a civic nationalism. People of the United States are expected to share a commitment to a certain set of ideals and values. There is a strong heritage of property, freedom of religion, free speech, a rule of law that respects individual freedoms, democracy, and an expectation that hard work will be rewarded by opportunities.

I argue that a dark skinned person who celebrates traditional American values is more easily accepted in our society than a descendant of a Virginia cavalier or a Massachusetts Pilgrim who rejects our mainstream political values (think John Reed, Timothy Leary, Jack Kerouac, Bill Haywood)





2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."

pass

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?

Multiculturalism is a term that has become as loaded as feminism or liberalism. While I value all of these concepts I think these things often turn into culture wars instead of reasoned debate when these terms are used. A nation that adheres to the values written in the Declaration of Independence and expressed on the Statue of Liberty is better off than one that discourages an influx of people from all points of origin with a shared dream to get ahead.

This is well presented with the way slavery stifled the economic diversity of the southern region of the south and how free labor was discouraged from coming into that region of the country during slavery and for a good time after due to a stronger sense of ethnocentrism.

The advantages of allowing cultural diversity bound by civic nationalism is like the advantage of having 100 lottery tickets instead of 1. People coming in to live the American dream have added to our culture as have those who have been brought into our nation or enveloped by it against their will.

The disadvantages of multiculturalism include the possibility that our nation will become separated into groups that have irreconcilable views. I think the fear here, even for the most virulent of ethnic nationalists (think Fascism) is that other groups will embrace, celebrate, and even elevate through democracy to rule of law ideals and values that destroy the core values of a people.

So I think what we fear and have historically feared is that new groups will destroy what defines our civic nationalism (the freed slaves could not be equal citizens and therefore would lead to an end of democracy, that East European radicals like Sacco and Vanzetti would bring in ideas that would lead to a violent overthrow of our political systems, that Joseph McCarthy's targets sought to steal our religious and political freedoms, that an unending stream of illegal immigration would undermine the American legal system.


A page of general definitions of shades of nationalism.
nationalisms

A Propositional nation sounds more correct -- and more so every year. Which makes us stronger, for we are not tied and blindly bound to traditions or genetics or religion. More and more we are a people who hold ideals above grandpa's fading culture. The last gasp attempts of conservatives to return to a Golden Age that never was is like all people mired in the past, a vain attempt to remain dominant. Witness the death of fundamentalist Islam. For all of its violent outbursts to force others to remain true they simply show why some things are meant to fall upon history's dustbin.
Have we gotten weaker for it -- no when 9/11 happened we bonded together to take care of ourselves and those in need. Our military is full of persons who willingly offer to make sacrifices for what they believe as necessary to protect freedom here at home.
Yet most Americans don't care where you are from or what you do--as long as they are not disturbed by it.
There are always spotlight seekers desperate for attention, politicians, Interest groups, entertainers, pundits, who fill the airways with their opinions and rants; but most Americans don't pay attention. Almost half of Americans at any given time have actual lives to live and pay no heed to the next Limbaugh or Moore.
Example: does anyone actually care that Pelosi is speaker, is it really all that impressive for a women to hold the post? Even cause celebres of the near past hold less attention than ever, 15 minutes may seem a long time if you watch a lot of cable, but names comes and go and its harder to hold court for very long. The days of the golden age superstar has been lost under the jumble of latter day wannabes. So many and so very generic that stardom itself seems less and less satisfying, so much effort now to maintain the spotlight.
There is still a lot of overlap between the 2 types of nations mentioned in the quote, simply because many of the ideals are often related to various aspects of cultures that have survived the test of time.
Honesty, peace, respect, hard work are almost universal ideals independent of culture. Shared by all people, just packaged and presented in different flavors. Distilled down and stripped of egotistical labels the concepts are the same. The ideals are what attracts and holds loyalty.
In a nation that has always been open to any who want to put in the effort to live life THEIR way, the ties and shackles of the past can be severed and left to rust.

Protecting those ideals is merely self interest. Not necessarily bound by the past.

The only danger of multiculturalism is to those who need for everyone to follow their way, and from those with a desperation for approval or forgiveness. I beleive that if something is worth its wait it will survive on its merit otherwise if it has to be forced what good was it.

And to agree with Victoria below--yes without multiculturalism I couldn't have burritos to go with my lasagne with my Guiness .
multiculturalism MMMmmmmm Tasty

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?

Culture cannot be entirely eliminated as a factor. The most important example would be the fact that there is a much higher level of religious faith (overwhelmingly Christian) in the United States than in almost all other nations with secular governments. Related to this is the fact that the United States has a more conservative culture, in some ways, than most nations in the free world. It is these things, I think, that Buchanan sees as endangered.

What is more important is that the United States is part of the free world. Living under a liberal, secular, representative government is what really matters. The United States is not unique in this regard.

2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."

A little of both, I think. We don't want to be fragmented into warring tribes, but we don't want to be homogenized into blandness.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?

Advantages: Many. Life is much richer with as complex a mixture as possible of music, art, literature, language, cuisine, and so on. The United States should not be a melting pot, but a spicy, complicated stew, with all the flavors blending into more than the sum of their parts, but not losing their identity.

Disadvantages: Only one, but it's an important one. The basic characteristics of a free society -- secularism, liberalism, representation -- must never be sacrificed in the name of any culture, be it the majority or a minority.

What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?
In all honesty?

Happenstance of birth location, encouragement of patriotism as a tradition, and one of the highest standards of living in the world. From these stem nearly all other factors.

Obvious practical considerations come first. The more esoteric culture and politics are product of the situation on the ground.

Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."
I'd go with the former, but would be extremely careful about the meaning of one.

Make that "one" as in one family, not one mind.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?
It's brilliant. Equal or superior to "representative government" as an idea with takes account of the real nature of human relations and works out a "least-worst" solution.

The advantage is that multiculturalism removes conformity as a government enforced value unless a particular type of non-conformity is a threat to the fundamental rights of its citizens.

It prevents (or is meant to prevent) a society from picking needless fights with each other.

Disadvantages include difficulty in deciding what types of cultural behavior violates fundamental rights and addressing these case.

Pat did poorly to mention faith. One of the great ironies I see in cultural relations in this country is the fact that such turmoil exist despite the fact that the nations majority religion, Christianity, is multicultural to its theological core.

One of the key elements of the birth of Christianity was, in fact, an elimination of a doctrine of ethnic exceptionalism.

It as if no one remembers that Paul was arrested and put to death for bringing "Gentiles" into the temple.

Questions for Debate:

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?
A commitment to a better future.

2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."
The former.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?
Advantages: an appreciation of the unique contributions and characteristics that other cultures have brought to the American melting pot.

Disadvantages: the belief that those other cultures are, on the whole, equal to our culture. If that were true, then the millions of people who have immigrated to America over the centuries are fools.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?
Advantages: an appreciation of the unique contributions and characteristics that other cultures have brought to the American melting pot.



I don't know about that.

Over the past couple of centuries each immigrant group has both added to the mix and assimilated into the mix. Therefore, our culture, whatever that means, changes with time. "Our culture" is different than it was in the 18th century and will continue to evolve in this and the next centuries.

What is most interesting about Mr. Buchanan's choice of criteria is that none of them (the first three in particular) define who is part of a nation; what they do is define who is NOT part of a nation. They are all exclusive rather than inclusive criteria.

Anyone of different faith, race or ethnicity is not a member of the nation then. Criteria like this are used by people who wish to define, not what a nation is, but what they believe the nation should be. The choice of criteria shows a great deal about the man who chose them, while saying little about America itself.

There have been nations in the past who defined citizenship by race, ethnicity and/or faith, I leave it to you to think of who these were. The worst thing about such a proposition is that it flies in the face of the very founding principles of this country. How can faith be a nationally defining principles if our founding father went out of their way to exclude a specific faith from the definition of the country?




I can think of a few other people who held such views, apart from Arthus Schlesinger. People such as John Adams, Samuel Adams, Josiah Bartlett, Carter Braxton, Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, Abraham Clark, George Clymer, William Ellery, William Floyd, Benjamin Franklin Elbridge, Gerry Button, Gwinnett Lyman Hall, John Hancock, Benjamin Harrison, John Hart, Joseph Hewes, Thomas Heyward, Jr. William Hooper, Stephen Hopkins, Francis Hopkinson, Samuel Huntington, Thomas Jefferson, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lewis, Philip Livingston, Thomas Lynch, Jr. Thomas McKean, Arthur Middleton, Lewis Morris, Robert Morris, John Morton, Thomas Nelson, Jr. William Paca, John Penn, Robert Treat Paine, George Read, Caesar Rodney, George Ross, Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge, Roger Sherman, James Smith, Richard Stockton, Thomas Stone, George Taylor, Matthew Thornton, George Walton, William Whipple, William Williams, James Wilson, John Witherspoon, Oliver Wolcott, George Wythe and George Washington.

I trust their opinions of what makes America a nation over the opinion of Mr Pat Buchanan.

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?

This has to be the Constitution of the United States of America. The document defines the country and is what gets defended by those who take the oath of office. When that defence is lacking, the bums get voted out of office.

The next strongest glue is nationalism (in the positive sense). Many of us like to think of it as one nation under God, which is fine by me, but when it comes to legal issues, God doesn't care. That's left up to us. Our reactions to the 9/11 attack showed how emotionally attached we are to the idea of a nation called the United States of America. Sure has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? We're united, many into one, and this union has held together longer than some thought possible.

Other observers have seen this here: We tend to be terminal optimists. We are the ones who think there's a pony that made that pile, half the glass is full, we can make it happen if we just try. A few among us think that's wrong thinking, and this is another characteristic of us: We don't care. Who are you? Bet you want money, don't you. Go take a flying leap.

This optimism can be unrealistic if taken too far, or it might be the mark of the successful entrepreneur. That really depends a great deal on luck. We think we're lucky to live here and be an American. I think I'm lucky to be employed again, although some heartfelt prayers and promises were made. We tend to think that way too, that there's help out there besides the government, and we often help each other. We like to be helpful, useful.

Arrogance marks us abroad. I think that comes from fear all the time, fear of being found out as a fraud. Some of us are indeed frauds, and it shows.

2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."

From many little governments comes a big government. From many little people comes one big person, Uncle Sam. Fifty stars and thirteen stripes make a single flag.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?

Many cultures in a single country can lead to the destruction of the country, or it can lead to a level of harmony. Either way, it's up to the people to accept or reject differences. As countries go, we're pretty good at accepting other cultures--thinking about how the Koreans and Vietnamese made lives for themselves here. Lots of others too, the Chinese, the Irish, my Scandinavian and European people . . . and now, or should I say for a number of decades, Middle Eastern and Mexican folks.

The little town I grew up in was one of the most diverse culturally around. You could walk down the main street and hear seven different languages spoken. My high school pal was Croatian and my sweety was Polish. The best looking woman in school was Greek. Nobody really thought about it much, except your usual racism and ignorance (pretty much the same thing). It's easier to grow up with diversity than to come upon it later on. Kids don't know that they're not supposed to like each other. My recollection is of rebelling quite a bit against being told not to like someone because of creed or heritage. That's a disadvantage I guess, although character-building on a level, the rebellion. It built a character, that's for sure!

Another disadvantage is language, obviously, and regional dialects sometimes. It's hard for northern ears to pick up on southern speech, or it was for me. Pen and pin sounds the same to me down there. I didn't know the Western term bucko would be taken the wrong way. Out here it's an expression of endearment.

Sometimes ethnic dress or religious belief clashes with the workplace or the government. I kinda liked the one about the driver's license photo--can't cover up the face. So what's more important, the belief or the car? It's really a lost cause to argue with the DMV.

History has shown rather plainly that the draw of American culture ain't what attracts immigrants.

In the words of Dr. Phil: "Get Real!"

The draw is the standard of living and we all know it.

Standard of living includes political consideration as well, civil liberties and the like. So I'm certainly sympathetic to the Constitution as part of the equation.

But (and excuse my cynicism) I'm about to get real all over that too.



There some small part of me that is quietly whispering I shouldn't laugh, but its fighting a losing battle because the opening line to this piece just about says it all.

Poll
... and just between us their parents don't do much better.

This combination of pride and ignorance point right back to my first post.

The Constitution does not bind America together, a rather sloppily manufactured belief in it does. Patriotism may be justified, but as a practical matter it is not rational in this country.

Finally I think one needs to make a distinction between the philosophy of multiculturalism and its often patchy implementation.

Embraced, multiculturalism is one of the greatest philosophical achievements of all time. The problems some posters list do not come from multiculturalism so much as the opposition to it.

My apologies for using a term somewhat imprecisely, but hey, I'm not the one who introduced the concept of culture here. It is not, however, simply the "standard of living" that does it. It is the whole package, from the very narrowly defined "culture" (the arts and letters), to the wider culture, i.e. traditions, political, economic and social arrangements, to the underlying concept of "America" and what it means to be an American. It is that latter definition of "culture" to which I refer.

Furthermore, the standard of living and culture are symbiotically linked.

I beg to differ. It is more far more rational in this country than in any other. But hey, what do I know, I'm a Cosmic Blonde, lacking the laser insight and towering intellect of my betters.

Distinguish all you want, what matters is the outcomes, and the outcomes only result from embracing it, not the intentions. And multiculturalism is proving to be as destructive as communism. Wonderful in a custom built Utopia, disastrous in the real world.

And now for something lighter:

When all the chips are down, the buffalo is empty

1. The strongest glue that holds our nation together is our economic system which has the capacity to cut through cultural, political, and religious differences. The capitalist system, where self interest has found a way to be channeled back into the common good (albiet indirectly) is the green glue that prevents us from blowing apart.

2. Uh, E Pluribus Unum.

3. It depends on what you mean by "multiculturalism". If you mean the "Balkanization" of the USA where a group of divergent subcultures exist, segregated from each other, all with their own selfish demands from the others, then it's a terrible idea. If it is the characteristic of American society to expand, integrate, assimilate, and borrow/steal/copy elements of other cultures and make them part of American culture, then I think it's a good idea. The problem of much that passes for "multiculturalism" is the demand by those who move here, legally or otherwise, to retain their native "cultures" whether they fit or don't fit with American cultural values along with the associated demand that "everyone change and accept THEM unconditionally!" by legal force if necessary.

The vast majority of immigrants come to America to improve their standard of living. Just about every major wave of immigration on can think of is economically driven. Indeed immigrants usually bring their cultures with them, as they always have, as they are slow to relinquish their traditions.

From the early Europeans wave, to the current american (Mexico, Central, and South) immigrants that part of the story is the same.

Immigrants didn't crowd into Ellis Island for their one big chance to watch baseball or read their very own Copy of the Scarlet Letter.

I'm as much a idealist as anyone, but let's try and resist the temptation towards the saccharine here.

Our culture isn't what people really wake up and smile about.

Does the average American wake up and say

Thank God for my:
a.)Constitution
b.)Literary Tradition
c.)Founding Fathers
or
d.) Bacon?

..and satisfaction with living standards is what glues a nation together. When life tanks, people leave.

Now this satisfaction has to be channeled, sure. That's where the tradition of patriotism comes in. The two working in tandem is what makes people identify with America.

Its best to approach this as a matter of sociology and the goal for a group member is security: physical and emotional.

Standard of living and patriotism are the one-two punch to satisfy a universal need. This works not just for America but for the rest of the "First-World." Do we really believe that if one of us had not been born and raised in France we wouldn't be patriotic there as well?

I was careful to distinguish between justified and rational.

I think Americans have a lot to be proud of, but our education system doesn't seem to be very good at informing them as to exactly what that might be.

Justified patriotism, but irrational in much of the population.

That's only true in a system where no other forces are at work. Opposition plays its role as well is and has been a source of many of the negative "outcomes" we've seen in this country.

That's like saying Constitutional Representative Democracy is flawed because of the outcome we see in Iraq. The problem is not the theory, but the oppostion to it.

The more I look at it as time goes on it seems the less people are able to employ capitalism but more or less be employed by it, I am not going to rant about my options to vote for the two respective parties of the Microsoft oil lobby but just in general the movement of capitalist ideology through time and space has seemed to maneuver it from once it once was. The more I think about capitalism as being some movement from coercion the more I find this idea falling apart in real time.

I think many people are drawn here from there cognition of what the U.S is relation to whatever environment that may happen to live in for the most part. I think a lot of the immigrants, but not all were drawn by the idea of a better life, simple example is fleeing from poverty, war or some form of persecution.


--------Break.

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?

I would say a combination of the three, the person above in reference to his book sounds more like a Nazi then an American overall if I may actually. If we get into saying that America itself is not a culture but that the cultures which moved here are its simply not true, for America would be nothing like it is if such were true, its open source information right there. As American as cowboys and Jewish gangsters.

2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."

Is it selfish genes or that species comes before I??? To quote Iron Maiden which I am sure is quoting something else, "I am not a number... I am a free man!"

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?

Can easily create insecurities between people is a con, plus is it can open up a closed mind.

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?


Birth is the main reason- or raised here if not born here- then indoctrination by our media and schools. Everyone wants to be on the winning side- so, lot's of chest thumping, ceremonies and chanting of "were #1 " for a few hours- not to mention church etc- ANY country, when threatened from without, "comes together"- Stalin had the whole nation on his side when Germany was attacking him- and Iraqis are coming out in droves to drive out the occupying forces- even when we are far better than Saddam. If someone were to come over here, and defeat us militarily, and execute our president, no matter how much I hated him, I would still rise up against the opposing forces- though I had never raised arms to my countries leadership, and it would have to be a pretty extreme thing for me to do it.

I do think we are slightly more tied to our constitution rather than our land though- since we have more recent immigrants.

2. Which is a more important idea - "from many one" or "from one many."

Case situational

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?

Clash of cultures and culture shock would be the disadvantage- and our entire economic well being would be the advantage- Those folks that immigrate here are sending billions abroad in currency- which props up our currency in foriegn markets- I think the Phillipines and Mexico would go balistic if the goverment outlawed dollars!

I heard the other day that immigrants make up 25% of the start up of new business- wow- talk about disproportionate representation by group!

Yes, but why here? Why don't the poor of East Asia immigrate to Japan or South Korea? Why do the millions of Latin Americans come here rather than going to Spain, which has both a better economy than most of Latin America, and minimal language barrier? Why have tens of thousands of Cubans risked their lives to get here, and stayed, rather than continuing on to another country that is economically better off than Cuba (i.e. every other country in the Western Hemisphere except for Haiti) and shares the same language?

Again, you seem to be overlooking the obvious. Why do they relinquish their traditions?

Hey, a real Cosmic Blonde never uses saccarine. Honest honey is our sweetener of choice. No bitter aftertaste.

In your limited definition of culture, I suppose that's true. But our culture is what enables us to put so much bacon on the table. "Only in America!" (I must note that I do not agree with Buchanan's definition of "culture" either.)

Sigh..., there must be a hardcore Marxist, in the sense of reducing Everyman to merely Economic Man, struggling for dominance within your cranial space.



Are you sure that the negative outomes of multiculturalism are a result of opposition? Even better, how about providing proof. Before you go haring of in search of your proof, I suggest you consider this...

"In the presence of [ethnic] diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us." -- Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam

It was one of the more irony-laden incidents in the history of celebrity social scientists.

While in Sweden to receive a $50,000 academic prize as political science professor of the year, Harvard's Robert D. Putnam, a former Carter administration official who made his reputation writing about the decline of social trust in America in his bestseller Bowling Alone, confessed to Financial Times columnist John Lloyd that his latest research discovery -- that ethnic diversity decreases trust and co-operation in communities -- was so explosive that for the last half decade he hadn't dared announce it "until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it 'would have been irresponsible to publish without that.'"

I suspect the fact that you are only aware of immigration to the United States is making you believe there is only immigration to the United States, a fact which is false. The poor of East Asia do emmigrate to japan and South Korea, in droves, even despite Japan's very heavy-handed and restrictive immigration laws. The foreign-born population of Japan is only 2% smaller (in terms of total population) than that of the United States.

As to why Latin American immigrants do not flee to Spain, I suspect the atlantic might be at least something of a factor. However Spain currently has enough immigration problems of its own, as does France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Portugal, Canada and most first world countries. In terms of immigrant applications per capita, the United States is in the top 10, but certainly not the top nation.

There is no denying that the United States is an attractive locale for immigrants, but so are many other nations, and to assume that the United States is somehow superior because of its total number of immigrants is both false, and based on faulty assumptions.



Why do foreugn nationals relinquish their traditions in any new country? The answer is simple, some do not, other assimilate wholely or in part. The same is true with every net receiver of immigrants planetwide, and hardly anything special about the United States.

In fact if we go back 100 years to the ero of Immigration, when the United States and Canada were massive net receivers of vast populations, the answer as to why is not culture or even standard of life, but completely open borders, programs meant specifically to attract new immigrants, and the enormous availability of inexpensive land.

Not according to the info in this thread... the foreign-born population of Japan is only 2%, not 2% smaller. Our foreign born population is in the double digits....

I'm sure it is, but if somebody can scrape up the money to pay to a coyote, I'm sure they can scrape up the money to pay for a plane ticket. Instead, they choose to come here...

Well, having "immigration problems" is a concern for the citizens of the country, but thus far seems to have had little effect in deterring theimmigrants. Heck, if the reason for allowing the immigration is to get more workers, it would seem that Spain, and to a lesser extent, Portugal, would be working mighty hard to get more immigrants from Latin America, given the minimal language barriers and cultural similarities. I'm not aware of any such efforts, although I am quite aware of the immigration/demographic challenges faced by Western Europe.

Well, given that our problem here isn't immigration per se, but illegal immigration, I'm not sure if applications are a useful measuring device, eh what?

I'm not assuming that we're superior because of the total number of immigrants, I'm presenting it as a proof that our culture is superior. As for false assumptions, if your rebuttal purports to identify such assumptions, I fear the flaws in it have rendered it wholely inadequate for the task.

Bikerdad- Russia has an enormous problem with illegal immigration from China- several times more problem than the US has with illegal Chinese immigration than the US- does that mean USSR's culture is superior to ours?

The whole idea is silly on the face of it- my girlfriends Grandparents and one of her parents were "illegals"- they send the money home to Mexico, and plan on living there someday- it has nothing to do with superiority- it is whatever opportunity- percieved or real, that the individual makes to immigrate, illegal or otherwise.

the "plane vs coyote"- is ignorant in the extreme. You have to go through, you know, an airport and show papers- um, duh?

MOST illegal immigrants don't come here illegally initally anyway- they get a visa, and overstay the visa. That is by far the easiest and cheapest way to do it- it is those that have been busted for it before that get counted, and make the news.

I know an Irishman that is here illegally right now- because he overstayed his visa. He just wanted a longer vacation- doesn't plan on living here- he thinks American culture sucks, but likes the scenery. My ex-inlaws that live here really dislike America, and plan on moving back to Russia the minute they get enough money too. But, they expended thier money immigrating here, turned out not to be the land of milk and honey they believed it was, now they want to get back, but don't have the resources.

The whole entire argument that we are better culture because poeple run to our country is ignorant and more than a bit of egotistical posturing.

If I had the resources, I would move to Europe in a heartbeat- but I am forced to live with what I got, so I do. America is not superior in any meaningfull way to Europe from my experiance- and much better in many aspects.

Nope, but it does indicate that, given the net flow of immigrants from China to both the US and Russia, that US and Russian culture is superior to China's. Proximity IS a factor, but I ask you... how many folks from Latin America are immigrating to Russia, in comparison to how many Chinese are immigrating to the US? I'd be willing to bet a gallon of green chile against 5 lbs of smoked salmon that there's a lot more Chinese coming here than Hispanics embracing Mother Russia. And we won't even begin with the number of Russians who are immigrating to the US... Now, perhaps you can present an example of a single country with a statistically meaningful net positive flow of immigration FROM the United States, and I'll consider that perhaps that country has a culture that is superior to ours.

And for some odd reason, America has been percieved as the "Land of Opportunity" for better than two centuries.... Its not "silly" on the face of it, except to people who find the expressed preferences of millions at odds with their own fantastical notions.

As an off the cuff remark, you're correct in dismissing it, yet the basic premise remains. Tens of thousands of illegals get into this country every year via "other than terrestrial transportation", and there's no reason they can't do the same to get to Spain (or Russia) from Latin America. Instead, they come here.

MOST? Not true. Most illegals from Europe and the Middle East, but most certainly not most from south of the border and Asia, and its those coming from Latin America who make up the vast majority of our illegal immigrants.

So turn him in.

Nahhh, he's just here for the beer.

Again, I direct you to my more expansive definition of culture. Ignorant? Not in the least, unless the tens of millions who have immigrated in the past, and continue to immigrate, are also "ignorant." As for "egotistical posturing", tough. Its better than hollow, self-aggrandizing, flagellation of your own country.

If Moif says that he believes Denmark has a superior culture than the US, I'll believe that he at least truly believes it. When Johnny Dep says France has a superior culture, at least his actions give credence to his convictions. If you can scrape up money for a plane ticket, then you have the resources, you just aren't willing to make the tradeoffs, and you refuse to take responsibility for your unwillingness. "forced" my keester. I could come up with a plane ticket, and I'm not even making minimum wage. And in that, your actions speak louder than your words.

Sell your car, get that plane ticket, and go to Europe. Have a pint with Julian and Moif while you're there and keep us posted, eh?

I have kids, a business (dealing with import/export BTW) and most importantly- kids. Oh yeah, and an ex-wife that would be perturbed and so would the judge if I ran off with them to Europe.

Johnnie Dep has enough money to buy his own island in the bahamas too. I don't have that either. Can't sell the car and kids to make up that tab!

I love my country- don't get me wrong, but I don't see it through rose colored glasses either- I love it warts and all. But to thump your chest and make proclamations about how "were #1" is dangerous to the nation even. This myopic view of the world we have as a society will be our downfall.

I completely disagree. Immigration applications indicate the number of people who wish to immigrate to a particular country. Canada, for example, has far higher immigration application rate per capita.

Actual illegal immigration indicates the number of people who actually manage to get to said country. That does not indicate the superiority of anything, in fact it likely indicates ease of access to the country. Canada has a smaller illegal immigration problem per capita likely only because the only way into Canada is across a major ocean or through the artic.

Pretending the fact that the United States has porous borders is somehow proof of superiority of anything is highly questionable.


Then, we have the second problematic assertion: your undefined linke between immigration and culture. There is simply no reason whatsoever to assupme, as you have, that immigration, legal or illegal, has anything whatsoever to do with culture. In the section of my post above you ignored, I pointed out the following:

"Why do foreign nationals relinquish their traditions in any new country? The answer is simple, some do not, other assimilate wholely or in part. The same is true with every net receiver of immigrants planetwide, and hardly anything special about the United States.

In fact if we go back 100 years to the era of Immigration, when the United States and Canada were massive net receivers of vast populations, the answer as to why is not culture or even standard of life, but completely open borders, programs meant specifically to attract new immigrants, and the enormous availability of inexpensive land."


For centuries, until the post-war peiod, the United States was seen as a cultural backwater compared to the old world, yet immigration was common. The fact is nobody immigrates due to superiority or inferiority of culture, and there is no causal link whatesoever between the two. They immigrate for financial reasons, or because the nation is actively seeking new immigrants, as North America was for a century, and offered financial and territorial incentives to move. None of this had anything whatsoever to do with culture.

That's a mighty tall claim, care to back it up? I challenge because applications only serve as an indicator of how many people are willing to jump through bureaucratic hoops to get in, not how many want to get in. Just for giggles, let's assume that the United States adopted an open immigration policy where all you had to do was show up at a Port of Entry and sign a slip of paper that said "May I please immigrate to the United States". Do you think our application rate would go up? by George, I think he's on to something there! Crikey, the immigration rate itself would go up!

I will agree that ease of access is a factor, but it doesn't explain away why people would want to get into a country.

Awww, nuts, my geography teacher lied to me. I guess the 48th Parallel isn't the longest undefended border in the world! Well, I guess I can add either an ocean crossing or an Arctic crossing to my list of motorcycling accomplishments.

Finally, a rebuttal with some meat on it! FWIW, I don't consider the fact of our porous borders to be proof of superiority, in fact I consider it to be a downgrade.

Since you clearly are resistant to the idea that culture can encompass much more than the arts, there's not much point in answering this....

cul·ture Pronunciation[kuhl-cher] noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.
3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.
4. development or improvement of the mind by education or training.
5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
6. Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.

1. What is the strongest glue that holds Americans together as a nation, cultural or political belief factors?

I'd like to start by quoting from John Jay, writing in Federalist #2, which was part of what every student of American political history knows was a very influential and defining series of papers on the founding of the new nation:


Now, I'm not suggesting that we in all cases slavishly conform ourselves to the ideas that the founding generation had; nonetheless, their observations do deserve serious consideration. Things have certainly changed since Jay's time. Most particuarly, immigration has formed a huge part of our national character. But I think we shouldn't lose sight entirely of what he was talking about here. Some form of common cultural link is necessary in order for us to be able to function as a free society. It can't all be disembodied ideals, as Schlesinger seems to suggest. Sounds great in theory, but doesn't work well in practice. If we become balkanized as a society, those ideals will go up in smoke, and everything will revolve around the lowest common denominator (a trend which unfortunately has already begun).

So what "makes an American an American"? Basically, he would have to regard himself as an American only. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said that hyphenated Americans have hyphenated loyalties, and I agree completely. An American should regard American history as his own history. His conection to his ancestral country should be, at most, a mere matter of curiosity. Certainly he should make it his business to speak and understand English absolutely as well as any native speaker, because we can't have a civic society if people can't communicate with each other on a completely familiar and intuitive basis.

There's nothing wrong at all with immigrants and children of immigrants (and 10th-generation natives, for that matter) bringing to the table ideas and practices from other cultures that could genuinely be useful to us all, but those should only be a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think in actuality the matter is entirely more complex.

Whatever her ideals, America has always been a nation fixated on the hyphen. Even the civil war can be seen as a scottish-derrived South rebeling against an Anglo-American Northern elite. For example, the St. Andrews cross, a Scottish symbol, was the basis for the iconic confederate flag.

Which to say nothing of the waves of immigrants that have rocked our culture, and almost without exception, been treated with suspicion and animosity upon arrival. Seldom in our history have we been able to reduce the hyphen to a mere matter of curiosity.

So what you are calling for, I think, is total cultural assimilation- but I don't think it can ever happen, and the alternative -- what has actually transpired in our history has enormous benefits.

Why can't Easten European Jewish-Americans pull from their lexicon to contribute to the working vocabulary of New York City (i.e. 'schlep,' 'schmuck,') It's thanks to German-Americans and their unique ways that we have the Christmas tree. It's thanks to Afro-Americans preserving their heritage as more than a 'matter of curiousity' that we've had any number of incredible cultural developments in this country: from the obvious fields of Music and poetry, to the less obvious influence of African religion and myths onto what has today become the Evangelical church. Or for that matter, the hankercheif or toothpick-- all Afro-American things.

Are you saying people should check their culture at the door? That there's no place for say, Muslims, in a pre-dominately Christian nation?

For over 200 years, we've withstood far greater waves of immigration, and I've yet to see how any of the current waves endanger us more than the last.

Enlighten me.

This must be what James Baldwin meant when he said, "The American ideal, after all, is that everyone should be as much alike as possible."

Teddy Roosevelt said a lot of things. He was also a walking and talking contradiction as most humans are.

Theodore Roosevelt once lamented, "there is not any more puzzling problem in this country than the problem of color." More puzzling to us now are his conflicted views on race. On the one hand, he could write that "the only wise and honorable and Christian thing to do is to treat each black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man." But as was common among whites at the time, his opinion of blacks as a group was rather dim. "As a race, and in the mass," he wrote in a letter in 1906, "they are altogether inferior to the whites." link

The paradox is by most accounts Roosevelt was considered sympathetic to the plight of Negroes.

As a hyphenated American, my love for my country is beyond reproach by the likes of Mr. Buchanan. My connection to this country is strengthened by understanding what my place is in context with how Africans were brought to America and the following history. There is no contradiction in being both a person of African descent and a American born citizen. There's room for both parts of the whole. The irrational fear that by embracing one's ethnic traditions and heritage someone lessens their commitment to the country is baseless.

Roosevelt was wrong in his assertion of White supremacy. He was similarly in error in his caution about the danger of hyphenated America.

Why was Roosevelt wrong? He clearly distinguished between individuals and a "group".

Would I be wrong if I said...

"As a group and in the mass, uneducated "white" southern people who live in trailer parks are altogether inferior to educated "white" midwesterners who graduated from the University of Michigan"? I'm sure I could find statistics related to socio-economic status, rates of alcohol and drug use, the success rates of their children, etc., to back up my assertion.

Or, would I be wrong if I said with respect to the US population...

"As a race, and in the mass, white people are altogether inferior to the asians".

I'm sure statistics could be found to back up this assertion.

So perhaps you can post statistics that demonstrate Roosevelt's characterization was wrong then? Or now?

On the other hand, I would arguably be wrong if I said "Lordhelmet is superior to Nighttimer". We both have our strengths and weaknesses, for sure, and if we treat people as individuals, not groups, we can avoid blanket characterizations which cut both ways in spite of those who champion the concept of "race" in order to further an agenda of artificial government imposed "advantage" based on the false concept of "payback".

With respect to being of "African descent".... we all are if we look back in the family tree far enough..... my brother.

And, as a hyphenated American myself (Patriot-American), I think that multi-culturalism, as it's currently promoted, does nothing more than divide us and create more areas for dissension. That's why we should focus on "other" things.... our economic system, commerce, trade, and the fact that we are all Americans and that membership in this country transcends traditional "cultural" traditions which do nothing more than just add to the diversity and breadth of talent in this country. Assimilating cultures into the melting pot that is America is far wiser than creating a neo-Balkans where subcultures are more concerned about preserving their own "culture" than with the entirety of our nation.

When Roosevelt made a blanket statement about Black people as a whole he stated "they are altogether inferior to the whites." That's not only racist, it is virtually the definition of racism. The judgment of history has been Teddy Roosevelt was ahead of other politicians in his treatment of Negroes, but he was not a visionary by any stretch of the imagination.

I have no interest or inclination to provide "statistics" to invalidate Roosevelt. I do not entertain debates on the notion of White racial supremacy and Black racial inferiority.

Your comparison of Whites being inferior to Asians is in mathematics is bogus. Merely because a racial group excels in one area does not mean a genetic predisposition for success. Were that the case every mathematician at M.I.T. would be speaking Japanese.

It comes as no surprise that someone would attempt to finesse a great American president's lapse into backward thinking, but some things aren't subject to revisionism and rationalization. This is such a case.

I made no mention of "mathematics" and Asians. I'm not sure where you read that. But the fact remains, when you look at a group of people "as a whole" and refuse to acknowledge the individuals, then "statistics" can be used to determine the status of that group.

If we measure success in the USA with respect to socio-economic status, education and graduation rates, crime and incarceration rates, stable family (divorce, out of wedlock birth) rates, etc., then "asians" are superior to "whites" in this country.

The problem with grouping people into convenient "races" is that it's a double edged sword.

Logically, if one champions the concept of "race" in order to obtain special advantage when it relates to job hiring, job promotions and college admissions.... then one has to also be subject to group characterization based on the commonly accepted "success" factors as determined statistically.

Therefore, why was Roosevelt wrong? His statement was statistically accurate if one considers "a group", not any one individual.

And why should that matter to you? I could care less that statistically "asians" are superior to "whites" if one looks at group statistics. It harms my self image exactly zero. I am an individual, not a group. Especially a group that would have to include, by default, "white" individuals who I abhor.

With due respect to BoF, this discussion is not relevant to his topic.

More importantly I repeat my earlier remarks:

But you *made* it part of this topic. You claimed that T. Roosevelt's statement was wrong. I said "prove it". That's standard practice on A-D.

I'm not debating whether "whites" are superior to "blacks"... or that "asians" are superior to "whites" for that matter.

I'm pointing out that when one focuses on "group" membership to gain advantage in the job market, in college admissions, to gain public resources, or to promote the idea of "multi-culturalism".... then one must accept (logically) the downside of that group membership. And in the case of "blacks", the statistics speak for themselves.

And since the subject of this thread is "multi-culturalism" and whether it offers advantages or disadvantages, it's highly relevant.

I've already pointed out that the color that binds America together is "green", as in cash. The beauty of capitalism is that it rewards society for a person's natural self interest. It creates a network of co-dependency and group benefit as a natural side effect. If it's good for business, the historical differences based on "race", religion, national background, etc, tend to be downplayed since the focus is commerce, trade, and doin bidness. It's like the NFL as I pointed out in the Superbowl topic. The teams could care less what players "look" like as long as they are the best available for their position. They are focused on merit because the goal is to "win". In capitalism, the goal is to make money and increase wealth. It's not based on some half-baked social engineering theories, discredited economics as promoted by Marx or Hillary Clinton, or the neo-racist theology of "multi-culturalism".

The concept of group membership based on "race" is CORE to this topic.

And, as I pointed out, it's a double edged sword.

Methinks some are being to kind in rebutting the nonsensical claim that Roosevelt might have been statistically justified in his racism.

I'll speak more to the point.

"Inferiority" in this context said nothing about social standing, wealth, or intelligence. It was a blanket claim that whites were better that blacks. nighttimer is right to dismiss this out of hand as much as we dismiss the venomous hyperbole the Al-Qaeda spouts about the "Great Satan".

It doesn't pass the laugh test, so we laugh.

Now then I think there is a little humor in the idea that capitalism bind America together as a country. Capitalism is by necessity driven by the personal desires of capitalists it has no cohesive affect whatsoever on American society except when it is is in the direct self-interest of the person involved which can change at any moment.

Globalisation has shown and will continue to show that when "green" is king companies will wipe their feet on the American flag to get into the coronation. Or were American companies not trading with Iran, buying illegal oil from Iraq, closing American factories to set up cheap operations in China, evading taxes, fixing elections etc etc...

It's older than Tammany, if you want a real two-edged sword, look at what Capitalism has done to and for this country, a real mixed bag.

You want real capitalism? Try the illicit drug trade, a true free market at work... tearing this country apart.

Would I have another system in place? Doubtful.

I am not, however, so naive as to this that capitalism holds this country together, its a whole different animal as has jack to do with our unity.

Multiculturalism by contrast has done this country a world of good when embraced and fighting it has shown the world our worst moments.

Good job with attacking the person and not the statement. Guess I should've expected it.

I totally agree with the "hyphenated American" and "hyphenated loyalty" principle. If I had a dollar for every time I heard a proponent of the African-American phrase say that they feel like the US isn't "their" country, I'd retire. Who's country is it? As hard as I've had to work, I can't imagine that it's any more mine than someone else's.

The truth of the matter is that Americans don't necessarily subscribe to a similar culture in reference to religion, food, or even music. It can be racially devided or just as often geographically.

I think what makes a GOOD American is our belief that we're lucky enough to realize that poor people in other nations don't have microwaves and chevrolets. That our power and wealth should be held in high esteem, and used whenever possible to help those downtrodden. Does it happen? Not all the time of course, but in our short history I believe it's happened more often than not.

I believe hyphenated-Americans will dissipate in the coming years particularly as those lines are blurred. Who really is "African-American", or "Asian-American", etc? What am I? My family is 3rd generation on one side and 2nd generation American on another. Do I get a hyphen? I think not. I'm American man. That's it.

Anyone who's travelled outside our beautiful borders realizes one thing. People immediately know we're American. The clothes we wear, the color of our skin, etc. No question. Someone in Europe doesn't consider a brown American African in any fashion... nor do people truly from Africa.

I think what SHOULD make an American would be a handful of things... including empathy, patriotism, strength, entreprenurial prowess, ambition, and of course a belief in a higher power (whomever that may be).



I would never state that capitalism has done anything truly bad, but yet people have used it as a vehicle to do bad things. The fact of the matter is that no system is 100% fool proof, but for Americans it's surely better than the alternative.

First, when one makes a blanket statement that declares that one group is superior to another, what criteria could one possibly be using? I'm sure Roosevelt was referring to any number of particulars. My point is that when one adopts the philosophy of the group, and believes in the collectivist way of looking at people, then one can be subject to those sort of characterizations.

Like I said, it doesn't upset me one bit if someone would produce a study that concluded that "Asians were superior to whites" based on academic achievement, IQ tests, rates of business ownership, low divorce and teen pregnancy rates, low rates of drug and alcohol abuse, low crime rates, etc. What would that have to do with me? When one deals with groups, one has to be included with the worst elements of that group. And why in the world would I want to be included with some guy with the same skin tone as me who had a tattoos on his neck, was addicted to meth, and on welfare living in a trailer? No thanks.

Second, I assumed that you understood that when I referred to capitalism, I also referred to the other pre-conditions that are required namely the rule of law, free markets, and free trade.

Our capitalist system has proven to be the most successful economic system in the history of the world. Illegal drug markets? Well, that's a rule of law issue.

What else holds this country together? What motivates them to deal with their fellow man instead of forming armed camps who flaunt the rule of law and who exist to dominate, by force, some insignificant piece of real estate or "turf" based on meaningless criteria such as what "race" one identifies with, whether one favors 2 wheel over 4 wheel transportation, or what "hood" one grew up in? That's what we see in Lebanon and now in Baghdad. And that's what we see in Detroit, LA, Newark, D.C., and the other areas that are big on the entire "multi-cultural" agenda.

The beauty of capitalism is that it channels human nature, more or less, into the common good. Other systems largely do not. Socialism causes people to become lazy and dependent on the system and it creates a large black market of people who want to do better than their "equal place" in society. In a capitalistic system, one cannot become rich on one's own. You need customers, clients, partners, employees, etc. You need to buy goods and services from others. You become completely interdependent with the system, a system that has been proven to WORK, in spite of the attempts by some to continue undermining it with government intervention, more socialism, etc.

Multi-culturalism does nothing to create interdependence. It creates islands of disaffected people, each with their own agendas, who are not motivated to deal with each other. It creates de-facto segregation. It's end result is a USA that looks like the Balkans, not the melting pot who's sum is greater than the parts.

As such, I think that the concept is a load of bunk.

...then I sincerely hope you'd use the cash to buy a history book.

It not a personal slight mind you, the problem here isn't ignorance, its perspective and a closer look at this nations history would help.

Considering how black were treated in this nations recent history our loyalty is staggering. I am reminded of how my Grandfather, a man who lived through the nadir of American race relations and saw his fellow African-Americans treated like dirt while serving in our nation's military tears up whenever the national anthem is played.

Its like the Jewish diaspora expressing love of German culture. It's possible... but one must admit there is plenty of reason to decline.

A proud Southerner should know that divided loyalty has squat to do with "hyphenation." Robert E. Lee didn't call himself a Virginian American, but he betrayed his nation just the same. Loyalty will be lost when a people perceive an injustice. Punctuation is irrelevant.


I disagree with the first statment, capitalism and the need to maximize profits has done great harm in this country, great good as well but its nothing we should cheer on as quintessential America.

I totally agree with that second sentence, my point was not that capitalism is a net negative for the country (I believe it actually weighs in as a positive) but that its affect is not truly cohesive


Your assurance is not shared. Without clarification Roosevelt's statement remains blanket and unverifiable.

You can try and justify it all you want but Roosevelt never mentioned stats so drudging them up does no good.


Its also textbook capitalism, to two are not separate. just because we as a nation have decided that our values demand this type of capatalist enterprise is undesirable doesn't mean capitalism as a system is not the key element.

Drugs, child porn, murder-for-hire, organized crime.

All as capitalist as Toys R Us.

Every system has a downside and capitalism has some mighty big ones. Like I said earlier that doesn't make it evil, but it sure isn't the bedrock of Americanism. There are plenty of capitalist countries.


Entirely false. Multiculturalism...

Well I put it best earlier.

It''s is a philosophy which is simply the rejection of xenophobia. It is a cry to mind your own business, if a persons culture is different, so what?

Enforce freedoms and values, not the arbitrary demands of culture.