Pat Buchanan's new book : The Death of the West

<B>It worries me that ALL Americans are not required to master the English language. Language is the basis for culture which bonds a people together. </B>

Yes, but this has always been the case here. The difference is that whereas people in the past came here only knowing German or Polish or another European language, now it's more of a "foreign" language to us.

<B>It worries me that 1 out of 9 people in this country (and probably 1 out of 3 if you watch Jay Leno in the local mall) probably don't understand our history and why we became the world's only superpower. </B>

Yet, across the board, we're more educated than ever before. In the early 1900's or 1800's, people didn't understand our national history all that much either.

<B>It worries me that most Muslim countries don't understand the importance of the separation of Church and State (and neither does Buchanan). </B>

Sure, but they never have. Europe didn't understand the difference either in the past.

<B>How do we deal with rapidly changing cultural demographics in the world and our country without losing our American culture that has led up to such greatness? </B>

The same way we always have. Immigrants made up a HUGE portion of our country in the past. The only difference is that the majority of immigrants were European instead of Asian or Mexican. They all brought with them unique pieces of their history, they all "walled themselves off" to some extent in their own communities and spoke their own languages and built their own traditions. Over generations, they integrated into society just fine, just as do 2nd and 3rd generation Mexicans and Asians.

I think people are just afraid of change.

 

I don't know the exact numbers, but for Germany, it is actually correct that the population is not growing. It is kept stable by immigration. If there was no immigration, our population would be shrinking.

 

First of all, sorry to post so much, but I find this to be an interesting thread that is very thought provoking.

I am not a religious person, so I have a very different perspective of morality and law. In my opinion, this is a "chicken or the egg" question.

Which came first, ethical pragmatism or religion? I believe that religion is really a code of ethics passed along from generation to generation. Civilization needs rules to live by, and these rules that worked (like the New Testament) became revered for their effectiveness.

Americans should not concentrate on the source of our morality though. We know what is "right and wrong" from history and personal experience. We have a long standing tradition in this country of not passing laws that will make a large percentage of us criminals. When we do pass unenforcable laws, like the prohibition of alcohol, our society suffers.

 

Actually, the quickest way to kill a language is to standardize it. Language requires growth for its very survival. It is necessary change. Language is "living" in that it adapts and changes to suit what is needed today. There are plenty of words that are common in use today that didn't exist 50 years ago. There are also many words we don't use any longer because they don't live up to modern standards.

This is not to say that learning the English language doesn't make it easier to survive in America. That is fairly obvious. But, the truth of the matter is that no one comes to America and expects to never speak English. Some may refuse, but they are in the very small minority.

I think that really depends on what the rules and laws are. That is highly subjective and spans times, cultures and ideologies. Also, like language and every other element of society, it changes and it must to survive.

I don't know that this statement is entirely true. Slavery was legal for 150 years and that was the forced servitude of an entire race of people, not just some law banning pot smoking. We still have sodomy laws on the books based not on some ethical standard but on a religious "right and wrong" standard. There are plenty of problems. Again, we evolve over time. What seems ok today will probably be seen as unimaginable in 50 or 100 years.

 

<B>It worries me that ALL Americans are not required to master the English language. Language is the basis for culture which bonds a people together. </B>

Yes, but this has always been the case here. The difference is that whereas people in the past came here only knowing German or Polish or another European language, now it's more of a "foreign" language to us.

<i>The difference today is that our national government r****ds their assimilation by promoting the use of government forms in different languages and bi-lingual education. </i>

<B>It worries me that 1 out of 9 people in this country (and probably 1 out of 3 if you watch Jay Leno in the local mall) probably don't understand our history and why we became the world's only superpower. </B>

Yet, across the board, we're more educated than ever before. In the early 1900's or 1800's, people didn't understand our national history all that much either.

<i>People today view government as the source for entitlements in my opinion. We became a great nation by understanding that "government is a necessary evil" and "the government that governs best governs least". These ideals that were espoused by our Founding Fathers have been forgotten by a majority of our people, and I am damn worried. European socialism is failing, but our politicians won't acknowledge this fact because they derive their power from government gifts to special interests.</i>

<B>It worries me that most Muslim countries don't understand the importance of the separation of Church and State (and neither does Buchanan). </B>

Sure, but they never have. Europe didn't understand the difference either in the past.

<i>Good point</i>

<B>How do we deal with rapidly changing cultural demographics in the world and our country without losing our American culture that has led up to such greatness? </B>

The same way we always have. Immigrants made up a HUGE portion of our country in the past. The only difference is that the majority of immigrants were European instead of Asian or Mexican. They all brought with them unique pieces of their history, they all "walled themselves off" to some extent in their own communities and spoke their own languages and built their own traditions. Over generations, they integrated into society just fine, just as do 2nd and 3rd generation Mexicans and Asians.

I think people are just afraid of change.

<i>I am worried that people today are not required to "wall themselves off" because of our government's intrusion and social engineering. How will Mexican and Asians assimilate if they can live their lives in this country and never have to learn our language? In some cases, they can interact with our government in their native language at every level. The cops speak their language. All government forms are in their language. They can educate their children in their native language, and we end up with fellow citizens that speak slang versions of our language.

I admire your optimism, but we have problems developing in our country that are unique to our times. </i>

 

I was answering the question, "how do you recognise a Christian?" but I do believe that these passages say a lot about what being a Christian is/should be about. What would you add? What is the nature of the "source?"

 

Jeff,

I agree that language, laws, and customs are constantly evolving. I am only arguing that we need to teach what bonds us together as Americans and what made this country great.

This goal can only be accomplished if we can communicate complicated ideas to eachother.

Time for work. I have screwed my day up by hanging around a message board.

 

<B>The difference today is that our national government r****ds their assimilation by promoting the use of government forms in different languages and bi-lingual education. </B>

I agree on bi-lingual education, but I think this is more of a failed experiment than anything else. Bi-lingual education is losing support everywhere. The biggest thing was when Hispanic leaders started coming out against it. Slowly, I think we will see it start to disappear.

On government forms and such, this helps new immigrants the most. My guess is that those people would (for the most part) still want their kids to learn English, as it is still a severe disadvantage when seeking jobs and such, even if not when dealing with government.

<B>People today view government as the source for entitlements in my opinion. We became a great nation by understanding that "government is a necessary evil" and "the government that governs best governs least". These ideals that were espoused by our Founding Fathers have been forgotten by a majority of our people, and I am damn worried. </B>

How much government is too much or not enough is a tough question. Things like a Central Bank were fought over by our founding fathers, but I think most people today agree that it is absolutely necessary. Ideas like the SEC or EPA were simply unnecessary back then, but I think most people agree they are needed today. Entitlements -- outside of Social Security & Medicare -- are a fairly negligible portion of our budget. SS and Medicare are the nightmares, and while no real solutions are in the works, at least government recognizes there are problems there. Unfortunately, it may take a mini-crisis to get them to fix the problelms.

<B>I am worried that people today are not required to "wall themselves off" because of our government's intrusion and social engineering. How will Mexican and Asians assimilate if they can live their lives in this country and never have to learn our language? </B>

I just don't see this as too big a deal. Sure, you CAN live in America without knowing English, but your quality of life and life experience will be much better if you do know it -- job opportunities, cultural experiences (movies, art, film, TV, etc) are all more plentiful if you know English. Because of this, I think most parents prefer their kids to know English. As long as 2nd/3rd generation immigrants are learning English, I think we're fine.

<B>I admire your optimism, but we have problems developing in our country that are unique to our times. </B>

I agree the problems are unique, but I think the solutions are not that difficult. I think our society has an incredible ability to adapt to changing circumstances and I don't see these problems as being so overbearing as to be difficult to adapt to.

 

I don't think the bible is too clear on anything. for one thing, how many different versions of it are out there? And there are many things in them that contradict one another.

 

You used the word "assimilate" which leads to a difficult issue. When you assimilate something, you not only bring it into your culture but your culture changes because you adopt those ideals, customs and even languages as part of the whole. Whenever someone from another country is added to us, their culture and customs don't (and shouldn't) die the minute they cross the border.

It is the rich tradition of bear-hugging people and cultures from across the globe that has given America the broad base of culture we have today. It also allows us to live on flexibly. IMO, it is more dangerous to begin to close those doors to the outside world. Civilizations thrive on changes and adaptations. Without them, the isolation invariable cracks the foundation upon which society is built.

Furthermore, we have to come to grips with the fact that we are living in a global society with global traditions and culture as well as an American one. I would think that fact has never been more evident. It is true that we are not educated in our own history as well as we should be (mainly because our system of schools spends 90% of the time teaching battles and wars and ignores much of what is in between but that is for another thread) but we are even more poorly educated in the history of the world as a whole.

With the vast widening of communications throughout the world, we cannot simply decide that English is enough. Children in other countries learn multiple languages and that prepares them better for life in a global society. Simply isolating ourselves from this reality is a death sentence for our culture. IMO, it is more important to remember that our society is one of humans, not just Americans.

 

From what I'm hearing, I'm with you. A problem arises, IMO, when one asks the question: Who speaks for Christianity? I would agree that to me the Bible is, on the key points anyway, quite clear. For me that means the passages I've quoted and others like:

"Judge not lest yet be judged."
"Let he who is sinless cast the first stone."
"What you do for the least of my people you do for me."
"We are justified by faith not works."
"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

What I hear from much of the Christian right is hardness, anger, self-righteousness, judgmentalism, legalism, focus on tax reduction instead of shelters for the homeless, etc. These people claim to be reading the same bible I am, yet their fundamental drivers, I feel, are very different than mine. Would I trust the Christian right to make laws and govern a country based on their take on the Bible? No. So before I entertain questions about the separation of church and state, I have to first ask the question: What up with the church?

 

Just a couple of minor points:

1) It is one thing to assimilate and merge with a culture (and change it to a degree), it is another to replace it. Some groups today desire to replace American culture, not merge with it. I don't have a problem, for example, seeing Mexican culture and American culture merge with each other, but I'll be damned if Mexican culture is going to replace ours. Groups such as LULAC and MALDEF have the aim of replacement, not merger, and that bothers me.

2) English is the IBL - International Business Language. That is just a fact of life. The push for "bilingual education" is IMO a huge threat to American culture. It is not, in practice, bilingual, but monolingual in the student's native language. It helps no one, and only serves to divide, despite its' proponents claims of being "multiculturalists"...

3) "Multiculturalism" in practice today is the art of deconstruction of American culture. It is one thing to honor, remember, respect, celebrate, etc. your ethnic history/origins, it is another to do so while criticizing that of others and attempting to abolish their right to honor, celebrate, remember, etc theirs. "Multiculturalism" today is not what it should be - a uniting force that expands our awareness and acceptance of others' points of view, and a celebration of diversity. Instead, it is a thinly veiled anti-Western-culture movement that seeks to erase Western influences in America.

And all cultures are only equal in the eyes of a moral relativist - someone who can justify and accept every act under the stars. I'm not a big conformist myself, but there are some things that we must all agree are right and wrong. Not everything is gray - some things must be black and white if civilization is to survive.

If American culture - and hence American civilization, for it is successful because of our culture - is destroyed, then freedom will depart the face of the planet once again, and the world is in another Dark Age. IMHO.

 

Just a few thoughts:

Pat's rhetoric has a lot more similarities to Islamic radicals than to our founding fathers.

Interestingly, the reason the US is expected to economically maintain its footing for the next century while the Europe's collective influence is expected to decrease is precisely because of immigration in our country (legal and illegal). Even Greenspan has acknolwedged immigration is a major driver of our overall economic prosperity.

Bilingual education is not a failed experiment, how it often is practiced may be failing but that is not unique to those programs. The original, and well designed, bilingual programs (e.g., Dade county) showed across the board educational benifits for the kids who went through them. The fact is our educational system is typically bad for all poor peoples. Poor whites in Appalacha or poor blacks in most inner cities show just as bad educational outcomes as poor initially mono-lingual Spanish speaking hispanics. The cry bilingual ed programs are responsible for the bad educational outcomes for hispanics doesn't hold much merit when you compare what they do relative to other engligh speaking American sub-groups who are poor.

Also, in most other countries speaking multiple languages well is an essential goal of their primary and secondary educational system. Of course all Americans should learn Engligh, but the idea that learning another langauge (Spanish, Fresh, Japanese, Catonese, or whatever else) inhibits English comptency flys in the face of many currently better performing educational systems throughout the world.

Sorry, I will be out for a few days so if anyone responds I won't be able to further respond--I am not ignoring any potential comments.

 

Desert Scar:

If bilingual education was actually bilingual, then there would be no drawbacks to it. When it was first started, it was bilingual. It is now generally monolingual, and English is not taught; it is simply education in the student's foreign tongue. That helps no one.

It never hurts to be multilingual. The more languages you can speak the better, no question. But in the US, English is a must. I don't see how anyone can debate that. If I chose to live in Mexico, I'd brush up on my Spanish and become fluent as soon as possible, even though I could probably get by with English and what Spanish I know... IMO English should be a mandatory element in any bilingual classes, or they shouldn't be held - much less paid for with taxpayer dollars. (I would gladly pay for true bilingual education, but not the crap we have now)

As for immigration, I for one do not think closing the borders and stopping it would be a positive development. However, I do think that we should be more selective about who we let in (as the recent terrorism episode should scream), and I don't think that we should offer incentives (free education, welfare, health care) to noncitizens. If they want those, then they can become US citizens and/or pay for it like everyone else, IMO. And I'd make the indoctrination process (of becoming a citizen) more thorough than it currently is - minimum language proficiency, more in-depth instruction on American cultural history, etc.

 

"Groups such as LULAC and MALDEF have the aim of replacement, not merger, and that bothers me. "

Examples ???