19 Responses to “Thought for the day”

1. G Bitch Says:
   June 27th, 2006 at 6:12 pm It seems the fear about "culture" is based in the idea that what makes American culture is some monolithic/monochromatic particular group of people and "values." It seems to ignore that what we call American culture is a mishmash of all the "immigrants" here. The difference is between integration and assimilation. You can function as an American, as a citizen, yet not leave behind/erase/deny your particularities. It is, it seems, necessary to do some integrating into the larger society but not as it is usually meant, or what i remember was meant by the conservatives I knew a million years ago in college--integration as complete assimilation, "American" equalling white, middle class, midwestern. In that sense, it is counterproductive and somewhat delusional.
   
   And it's not an interruption. It is another link on the same chain.
2. Scott Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 8:57 pm An oppressive understanding of "integration" does not depend on the culture in question seeing itself explicitly as "monolithic/monochromatic" either. Canada makes a big deal out of its multiculturalism, an official federal policy since the '70s, but the reality of Canadian society is that it is a "vertical mosaic." That was the name of a seminal study in Canadian sociology in the '60s which found that the elites in every sector were almost uniformly of British origin, and that other (white) ethnicities tended to be trapped in lower status employment, etc. It completely ignored gender and treated race as a very minor add-on to ethnicity, so there's lots that one could critique it on, but it introduced the idea that Canada was not just a "mosaic" -- the euphemism that is counterposed as being morally superior to the American "melting pot" in liberal Canadian ideas (delusions) of nation -- but a highly regimented hierarchical one.
   
   Of course there is lots of current evidence that, despite state support for maintaining some of the more superficial markers of culture-of-origin, and despite the barriers to non-British-origin white people easing in the past four decades, the vertical mosaic still exists and is highly racialized/racist. Though I'm sure the employees of the para-state agencies which support people in integrating mean something a bit different when they say it, "integration" often effectively means learning to fit yourself into the slot that the interlocking hierarchies of power and privilege in the host society have determined should be yours.
   
   In other words, "integration" as defined in G Bitch's comment above is definitely an improvement for the person integrating over "assimilation", but even to the extent that elite liberals determine that retaining your particularities is acceptable and to be encouraged, integration is still likely to be an oppressive process -- particularly for immigrants who are racialized and/or who lack class privilege.
   
   I'm being a bit flippant in saying this, but you could sum it up from the mainstream middle-class white Canadian standpoint as follows: "When you integrate, that means we get to exoticize your traditional costumes and cuisine, and you get to drive our cabs no matter how many professional degrees you have."
   
   More generally, I would imagine that what "integration" can/does mean would depend a lot on the way the host society works. We have highly unequal and racist host societies here in North America, so that shapes what even the more benign models of integration can mean for those doing the integrating.
3. IrrationalPoint Says:
   June 30th, 2006 at 7:16 am "The difference is between integration and assimilation."
   
   Good point.
   
   It is certainly true that when conservatives talk about "integration", what they mean is *assimilation*, which is roughly what Scott's flippant (although basically accurate) description is of, but presumably complete assimilation would mean adopting the same values and customs as the upper class of the host country.
   
   '"integration" often effectively means learning to fit yourself into the slot that the interlocking hierarchies of power and privilege in the host society have determined should be yours.'
   
   A good way of putting it.
   
   Agree with G Bitch's point about the common delusion that American culture is monolithic, although as Scott points out that's not a requirement.
   
   "I would imagine that what "integration" can/does mean would depend a lot on the way the host society works."
   
   Yep. If we assume a utopian "good" meaning for integration, what would that require on the part of a hypothetical host society?
   
   Good stuff, Scott and G Bitch. I'm also interested to hear ideas from the people who were participating in the Unlearning Racism series, as integration briefly came up in one of the discussion threads.
   
   --IP
4. Changeseeker Says:
   July 1st, 2006 at 5:12 pm Another thing I think is ignored in the discussion of integration/assimilation/immigration/et al is that not only is the U.S. not mono-cultural and never has been from the beginning, but it is (as do all societies) changing every minute--literally every minute. Which culture would we have a given immigrant "assimilate" or "integrate" into? The one represented by, say, Clay Aikens or the one represented by P. Diddy?
   
   My European-American mother who has lived here for her entire eighty years wouldn't know what to do with a computer if her life depended on it. Yet there's no question that computers are a major (if not the main) mode of communication these days in the U.S. Has she somehow failed to "integrate" (or somehow accidently un-assimilated)? Has a White kid who loves hip-hop and lives on ramen noodles gotten caught somehow in a culture warp of some kind? Would we expect all immigrants to eat McDonald's (yuk!), wear Dockers (eek!), and listen to Mantovani (huh?)?
   
   Culture is as kaleidoscopic as the weather. The fact that those with the power to define all look alike is what creates the illusion that U.S. "culture" is made up of "White," "Christian," heterosexual, English-speakers...
5. kathy Says:
   July 1st, 2006 at 8:26 pm I agree with you changeseeker. My question ,exactly,
   has been how to define American culture?
   
   Your mention of computers is a great example
   of how so many of us have become so insular.
   We talk on our cell phones, listen to music
   with headphones on; many of us work in cubicles
   removed from each other. We communicate on-line
   instead of face to face. It feels as if we are
   moving away from each other with each passing
   day.
   
   I always thought that integration and diversity
   were parallels. Knowing different people is
   definately a good thing imo. It helps stave
   off the negative stereotypes and fears that
   are constantly promoted by the media. How can
   one know the issues and be able to be an ally
   if the only source of information is from
   written material?
   
   IP: I don't know what would be required of
   new immigrants. I really don't think any of
   those efforts would make much difference.
   Just think of Asian Americans who are still
   asked if they speak English, or where they
   are from. The perpetual foreigner myth is
   based solely on physical charactoristics.
6. IrrationalPoint Says:
   July 3rd, 2006 at 2:06 pm "I don't know what would be required of
   new immigrants."
   
   What would be required from the host community?
   
   --IP
7. kathy Says:
   July 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 pm What would be required from the host community?
   
   For starters, a welcome instead of a wall!
   
   I think the community has to recognize that
   immigration is a part of the economy, and
   vital to culture as well. Otherwise, we
   have stagnation. For any society to sustain
   itself, it must be able to grow and change.
   Immigration brings new ideas, differing
   perspectives, and adds to the richness
   of language.
8. Sailorman Says:
   July 19th, 2006 at 7:09 pm What does “integration” mean?
   
   I'd slightly modify the comment above regarding assimilation.
   
   Assimilation would be a subset of integration, not a requirement.
   
   What does it require on the part of immigrants to a new country,
   First, of all, it often requires an intent to integrate, and not to remain separate. I could probably become a citizen of a few different countries. Once ther, I would have the option of hanging out in American bars and hotels and clubs, working primarily/only with Americans, eating out at McDs, etc. That would not be integrative.
   
   But really, what does integratd mean? it means NORMAL. Something which is normal is integrated.
   
   So as I see it, immigrants, collectively, sort of have a choice of one or more of three very general options if they want to integrate;
   
   1) They can assimilate, which is to say adopt enough of the dominant culture's values that they become "like" that culture enough to be integrated;
   
   2) They can encourage, or accept, the dominant culture becoming more "like" them through sharing of cultures, thus increasing the match between the cultures and becoming integrated. (this is sometimes also called "cultural appropriation" and is then viewed as a bad thing)
   
   3) They can remain in their culture and relatively isolated until their presence and customs are "normal" enough to be considered integrated.
   
   None of those is "better" per se and different cultural groups have all gone different routes.
   
   and those already residing in that country?
   Try to be reasonably nice about it. Personally i think the burden falls much more on immigrants.
   
   Is it a good thing or a bad thing, and why?
   Integration is required for effective communication IMO, and thus it's a good thing.
   
   Is it important, and if so, why?
   Integratoin is also required for effective formation of groups across cultures. Since those large groups (political patties, etc) are how power is apportioned in this country, this is extremely important.
9. IrrationalPoint Says:
   July 21st, 2006 at 2:52 pm Sailorman:
   
   I don't think assimilation *is* required for good communication -- why do you think this is the case?
   
   "But really, what does integratd mean? it means NORMAL. Something which is normal is integrated."
   
   And what does "normal" mean, in this context?
   
   That is, suppose you're an immigrant -- you don't speak English fluently, you come from a country with a different culture and different way of doing things. You're expected to "integrate" -- how are you to go about doing this? Especially when the "host" culture marginalises you while you are not fully assimilated?
   
   "Integratoin is also required for effective formation of groups across cultures"
   
   If you're integrated as you describe, then you don't have a different culture, so "formation of groups across cultures" happens by essentially requiring a group to give up their culture.
   
   --IP
10. Sailorman Says:
    July 24th, 2006 at 10:09 am "Integration is also required for effective formation of groups across cultures"
    
    If you're integrated as you describe, then you don't have a different culture, so "formation of groups across cultures" happens by essentially requiring a group to give up their culture.
    
    No, you're not. See, e.g., my "option #3" which essentially allows one to stay isolationist, preserve culture, and wait until the majority culture gets "used to you." The most obvious example of that in my area would probably be the various Chinatowns, in which there is a non-majority lifestyle, but which do not preclude anyone who lives there from leaving and interacting.
    
    And what does "normal" mean, in this context?
    
    Usual. Not worthy of immense attention. Not that which draws unwanted notice.
    
    Where I live, for example, we have a fairly distinct Brazilian population. They maintain their own culture and interact socially together. They speak portugese (and sometimes English.) They are a very small minority--maybe 5%, or less--of the total population.
    
    But they are fully integrated, and not because they have assimilated, or lost their own culture, or even speak English. They are integrated because they are a normal part of the population. It is no more unusual to have someone sitting next to you speaking portugese that to have someone start spouting about Jesus (the latter is probably more rare.)
    
    Most folks who are Brazilian have learned to say hello, yes, no and thanks in English. And many folks who don't speak portugese, have (like me) learned to say hello, yes, no and thank you in Portugese. The local programs offer English classes and Portugese classes. And so on...
    
    Isn't that integrated?
11. IrrationalPoint Says:
    August 3rd, 2006 at 1:45 pm The kind of acceptance you describe requires acceptance by the "host" culture. It is the "host" culture that decides what's "normal" and what isn't.
    
    Since you said
    
    "Personally i think the burden falls much more on immigrants."
    
    it is not clear to me how you can reconcile these two points. If you are sticking with the former (namely, that a group is integrated when the host culture no longer thinks it's a novelty, or when the host culture has accepted it), then the latter option (that integration is the responsibility of immigrants) is unclear about how it is the responsibility of immigrants.
    
    That is, what must a group do to beceom accepted? If the host culture decides, then isn't non-integration the result of the host culture being insuficiently accepting?
    
    --IP
12. Sailorman Says:
    August 4th, 2006 at 2:34 pm Hmm.
    
    First, let me be clear: I think you're asking what I think integration IS. Not what I think integration SHOULD BE. Hopefully we're not on different subjects.
    
    That is, what must a group do to become accepted? If the host culture decides, then isn't non-integration the result of the host culture being insuficiently accepting?
    --IP
    
    Well, I suppose you could define it as "insufficiently accepting" but you could also probably define it as "insufficiently accomodating" in the part of the immigrants.
    
    It's a little like Coase's confectioner. Either side can close the gap.
    
    One can become more "normal" by refusing to change one's appearance, and trying to persuade society that one is "normal," and waiting until it works. Or you can become "normal" by mimicking other people who are already considered normal.
    
    Your argument, I think, is ignoring the reality that it is harder for a society to make a large adaptation for 'normality' than a small one.
    
    I am a little confused that you ask "what can the immigrant group do to have any effect on this?" as I thought I answered than in #1 -3 a few posts up. Clearly you don't think those are sufficient; what do you think is missing?
13. IrrationalPoint Says:
    August 9th, 2006 at 12:54 pm "you could also probably define it as "insufficiently accomodating" in the part of the immigrants. "
    
    There's a logical inconsistency here. First you said that integrated is when something is considered "normal" by the host culture. Which means that it must be the host culture that decides what is "normal" and what isn't. If it isn't about being able to speak English or having the same traditions (as in your examples), then it must be an arbitrary decision of the host culture, and as such, deciding that something isn't "normal" is down to the host culture.
    
    But's that's really almost a side issue. This is nearer the important point:
    
    "Or you can become "normal" by mimicking other people who are already considered normal."
    
    Why should a culture do so? What makes one culture more acceptable than another? Differently put, why is it a problem for "non-normal" cultures to co-exist with "normal" ones? Or nearer the point, why do we need to decide that some are "normal" and other's aren't?
    
    "Your argument, I think, is ignoring the reality that it is harder for a society to make a large adaptation for 'normality' than a small one."
    
    The adaptation required would be to stop alienating other groups. I don't think alienation becomes somehow ok just because it's easier for the host society.
    
    --IP
14. Sailorman Says:
    August 10th, 2006 at 3:35 pm You didn't seem to address my comment about whether we were talking about "should be" or "is" situations. I think this may be the basis of these questions...
    
    I feel like I'm trying to use both-sides language, while you're determined to use one-side language.
    
    In your view, the majority "alienates" but the minority is apparently not complicit in that at all.
    
    In your view, the majority "decides what is normal" but the minority has no say, or effect, on that at all.
    
    Am I stating this correctly?
    
    If not: I apologize, and let's try again for accurate communication.
    
    If so: I think this may simply be a matter of disagreement between us.
    
    Let's take alienation as an example.
    
    Clearly a majority can elect to alienate a minority group, despite the minority's best attempts to become 'friends' at it were.
    
    But clearly (to me, at least) a minority group can also reject or welcome any attempts to become friends. And the MINORITY group's action, as a result, can have a big effect on whether any integration can happen.
    
    In other words, the majority has "veto power:" It can alienate a minority. But even if the majority DOESN'T USE the veto, and does NOT alienate the minority, the minority ALSO has "veto power" because it can alienate itself.
    
    Why should a culture do so [assimilate]?
    Why? Because they may want to. Perhaps the benefits to be gained by assimilating and integrating are enough to justify some loss in culture. It is often difficult to have things both ways. If they do not want to, then they should not do so.
    
    "Should" someone named "Jakobiny Schmittix" change his name to "Jacob Smith"? I'd have to ask Jakobiny that question.
    
    What makes one more acceptable?
    This is entirely a matter of viewpoint. There's no objective "acceptability."
    
    Differently put, why is it a problem for "non-normal" cultures to co-exist with "normal" ones?
    Have you switched definitions of "normal?" I explained I was using "normal" to mean "Usual. Not worthy of immense attention. Not that which draws unwanted notice."
    
    Under that definition: It's not necessarily a "problem" to co-exist, unless you consider being viewed as non-normal to be a problem.
    
    The adaptation required would be to stop alienating other groups. I don't think alienation becomes somehow ok just because it's easier for the host society.
    
    Hmm. I'm not sure I'm willing to think alienation is per se BAD. There are both costs and benefits to separatism. On both sides.
    
    Does it make more sense to ask a hypothetical population of 1000 immigrants to adjust radically to the whims of the 100,000 majority? Or does it make more sense to ask the 100,000 to make more minor adjustments--but of course, you'll have to make it happen in 100,000 people? I don't think the answer is really clear.
    
    BTW, I'm happy to talk about either "ideal goal" or "real life" or anywhere in between, but I think we're not on the same frame here.
15. IrrationalPoint Says:
    August 22nd, 2006 at 1:55 pm Ok, there's clearly some miscommunication going on.
    
    "In your view, the majority "decides what is normal" but the minority has no say, or effect, on that at all.
    
    Am I stating this correctly?"
    
    Not quite. That is, I thought it was what you were implying, in which case your argument was inconsistent. Apologies for having misunderstood your argument.
    
    "Clearly a majority can elect to alienate a minority group, despite the minority's best attempts to become 'friends' at it were."
    
    Absolutely. This is often disregarded.
    
    "In other words, the majority has "veto power:" It can alienate a minority. But even if the majority DOESN'T USE the veto, and does NOT alienate the minority, the minority ALSO has "veto power" because it can alienate itself."
    
    I agree up to a point. Yes, individuals or groups can, in theory, decide not to integrate. But there's two important points with this:
    
    Firstly: the attitude of the majority (or more powerful group) overrides that of the minority. That's a direct result in the structural power differences between the groups.
    
    Secondly: the practicality of survival. I said "in theory" because immigrants have an interest in surviving in the country they live in, and that of itself requires some degree of effort to integrate. So I'm very very wary of people who claim that immigrants are doing nothing to integrate.
    
    "Hmm. I'm not sure I'm willing to think alienation is per se BAD. There are both costs and benefits to separatism. On both sides."
    
    I disagree. Alienation is NOT the same thing as wanting to preserve your culture. For starters, alienation is de facto exclusion. Wanting to preserve your culture doesn't have to be.
    
    "Does it make more sense to ask a hypothetical population of 1000 immigrants to adjust radically to the whims of the 100,000 majority? Or does it make more sense to ask the 100,000 to make more minor adjustments--but of course, you'll have to make it happen in 100,000 people? I don't think the answer is really clear."
    
    Again, I disagree. I think the answer IS clear because the adjustment that the majority needs to make really is minor. The adjustment that is required is respect and inclusion. I don't think the minority should have to deal with exclusion just because it's "easier" for the majority. It's not a question of what's "easier", it's a question of what's fair.
    
    --IP
16. Ashmeriel Says:
    August 27th, 2006 at 8:48 pm I think I'm in a very unique situation as I live on what can easily be described as a "border culture," and I see the myths, agendas, misperceptions, that populate both sides of the "tortilla curtain"; in addition, I'm both of Latin-American and German-Irish descent, and can easily relate to either culture. If you've ever followed my posts, or been exposed to my writings, I think you'll begin to suspect that I don't fully ascribe to any one political body, just because I was brought up or raised under such a system--my life is characterized by testing each and every idea or ideology that permeates our society, and weighing its relevance. I'm very critical of much of the beliefs to which our generation adheres as though it were fact or self-evident, when in reality, like anything else in our society, it is politically motivated. Furthermore, I am as critical of leftist politics as I am of right, finding both to be characterized by huge chasms of logic, and stuffed instead with emotion. My graduate work is very much concerned with untangling the ideological knots that have created tension in our society, and forging instead a new language, a new aesthetic, a new politics, to better reflect the sensibilities of those individuals like me who realize that the old system is too polarizing to reconcile differences. That being said, here are my observations on immigration as applied specifically to those individuals whose national origin is Mexico.
    
    The single greatest threat to the conservative view of immigration in the United States is fear. Most American views on immigration are motivated by it, which is why their anti-immigration rhetoric lacks weight. Falling back on emotion, they tend to sound alot like crazed, Bible thumpers, rather than rational adults. First, it must be noted that most Americans aren't "anti-immigration"--they are "anti-ILLEGAL immigration" with an emphasis on ILLEGAL.
    
    The single greatest threat to Mexicans who wish to immigrate here are the percentage of those people of Latin-American ancenstry who believe there is no need for Mexicans to assimilate whatsoever. They tend to be more liberally educated, and occupy what Marx would call the superstructure of society. And because they are liberally educated, they believe their view of immigration should characterize the views of everyone they believe they're representing. It is these individuals who frighten the hell out of those Americans who believe assimilation is the answer. It is they who are the most vocal.
    
    Between both parties are the laborers--those Mexicans who do all the dirty jobs that nobody here in the States wants to do. That last sentence is filled with politically motivated bias. Firstly, it's meant to romanticize the myth of the "hard working" Mexican peasant, and simultaneously imply that Americans think they're too good for these jobs. In reality, there are a lot of other minorities here in the States, including Mexican-Americans who really do want those jobs. But the liberally minded intellectuals here have felt it their responsibility to propagate this myth, and to pretend their opinion is representative of us all here in the States. Just for the record, it's not.
    
    This is not to suggest that these laborers aren't hard-working, because they most certainly are. If you have ever lived in a border town, chances are you have worked with naturalized citizens, and have been impressed, as I have, by their incredible work ethic, their love for responsibility, tradition, and, most importantly, respect. You will also be surprised that most want to assimilate, at least to the point that they want to speak English, and to ingratiate themselves with American culture. Most of the grassroots Mexicans living within San Diego, encourage their children toward bi-lingualism, seeing the benefits of having more than one tongue in our polyglot society. Most conservatives would be surprised to note that contrary to what they have been told, and contrary to what the liberal Mexicans insist upon when talking about "their people," Mexicans, like most everyone else, are incredibly practical and utilitarian, and are more than willing to compromise.
    
    So why the confusion? Because those self-appointed representatives of Mexican immigration harbor politics that are not actually representative of their constituents, and so those Americans (not just WHITE America by the way) who find their culture to be incredibly dear and precious are filled with reactionary fervor when they feel their history and culture are being threatened, and will be rejected by potential citizens who wish to live here.
    
    Another myth surrounding the issue is one which paints the "anti-ILLEGAL immigration" group here in the states as being primarily white and primarily conservative--this despite the fact that almost everybody here in the States knows that the white man is becoming his own minority, that politic alliances are shifting to be more middle of the road. Here in the States, the political body that will achieve most power, will be the one that can mainstream itself more than the other. Today, individuals are becoming more liberally minded, and are more open to change than the extreme liberal contigent here would have you believe. The result is that those hispanic liberals mitigating the immigration issue paint America as being filled with white, racist fury toward Mexicans, more than it really is. Faced with this "image," this "stereotype" of the "conservative Mexican hating American," the more impressionable individuals of Mexican society fear they really are being handed the short end of the stick, and will react with the same fervor as those Americans who feel they are under attack as well.
    
    To me, what I am seeing today on both sides of the divide is a "politics of misrepresentation" in which the feelings, agendas, and bias of a small group are being used to (mis)represent everyone else. This becomes even more problematic for a progressively minded invidual like myself, who wants to fight the anti-Mexican bias that has resulted from an "anti-ILLEGAL immigration" stance, without tripping into those leftist myths and ideologies that are the product of bipartisan politics.
    
    In short, and confusingly so, I believe much of the emotions surrounding the Mexican-immigration debate are the results of stereo-types fighting stereo-types, with the stereo-types not accurately reflecting truth.
    
    For my part, I am not afraid of losing American culture. And most Americans aren't afraid of the same. They realize that Mexicans aren't here to demolish culture but to contribute to it. The backlash comes from a reaction to that small percentage of extremely liberal representatives who are indeed fighting to remove English as the dominant language in certain school systems, and who are trying to change the nature of the text-books. This is a reality that Mexicans need to realize, and they need to put pressure on their representatives to keep this from happening. Why? When you consider that children in France and Italy as well as other countries are required to learn English as part of their curricula, you see the political ignorance in insisting that Mexican children here in the United States shouldn't learn the same.
    
    Americans on the other hand need to stop arguing for the dominance of an American culture as though American culture weren't subject to change. Americans of all ethnic backgrounds need to understand that we have a shared history; we need to put pressure on those individuals and groups who try to argue for a very narrow understanding of our culture and to tell them to keep their mouths shut. Culture is ephemeral and subject to change. I for one welcome such change.
    
    And both parties need to understand that being anti ILLEGAL immigration is not tantamount to being racist or anti Mexican--that is a stereo-type that certain interest groups are using for their own silly agendas. Unless both sides of the divide, conservative and liberal alike, stop perpetuating political myth, and start weighing their words carefully, we are in danger of inching closer and closer to violence.
17. IrrationalPoint Says:
    August 31st, 2006 at 5:39 pm Ashmeriel:
    
    Not quite unique, on this blog as it happens...I'm of Latin-American descent. I grew up in Texas. Neither of my parents is from the US -- my mother is Latin American, my father is English. Both legal immigrants.
    
    But guess what? My mother gets the "go back where you came from" treatment, and my father doesn't. People either assumed she was in the country illegally, or just didn't care, because she's Hispanic.
    
    "First, it must be noted that most Americans aren't "anti-immigration"--they are "anti-ILLEGAL immigration" with an emphasis on ILLEGAL."
    
    This is true up to a point, at least in theory. (Nobody tells my dad to go back where he came from.). The difference is that the immigration debate isn't really about Europeans -- it's primarily about Mexicans. Which is interesting in and of itself -- why Mexicans and not, say, the Irish?
    
    "Faced with this "image," this "stereotype" of the "conservative Mexican hating American," the more impressionable individuals of Mexican society fear they really are being handed the short end of the stick, and will react with the same fervor as those Americans who feel they are under attack as well."
    
    For what it's worth, in my experience there is more truth to this stereotype than you seem to want to acknowledge. Where I grew up in Texas, the "bad side" of town was the bit of town that was predominantly Hispanic. People were scared of Hispanics in a way that they weren't scared of their white middle-class neighbours.
    
    "The single greatest threat to Mexicans who wish to immigrate here are the percentage of those people of Latin-American ancenstry who believe there is no need for Mexicans to assimilate whatsoever."
    
    How'd you figure that one?
    
    (And as an aside, because it's not really relevant:
    
    "When you consider that children in France and Italy as well as other countries are required to learn English as part of their curricula, you see the political ignorance in insisting that Mexican children here in the United States shouldn't learn the same."
    
    Note that English is taught as a *foreign* language in France and Italy -- that is, the French and the Italians learn foreign languages. Yes, English needs to be taught in schools, but you know what? So do other languages. For real. It's silly that most kids graduating highschool only speak English. And no, that's not a political conviction on my part about immigrants or anything -- it's just that I think multilingualism is useful.)
    
    --IP
18. Ashmeriel Says:
    September 4th, 2006 at 7:15 pm You should really re-read my post because all the answers are there.
    
    Immigration is primarily a hispanic issue because it has become latinized by those hispanics who right now comprise the largest pro-immigration organizing force here in the States. It's really as simple as that. Americans feel the need to respond to this contingent and to the politics they purport because they are the most vocal. Consequently, a lot of the anti-hispanic sentiment aroused is post and not just pre-immigration debate--that is, a lot of the anti-hispanic sentiment comes as a rejection of pro-(illegal) immigration sentiment. But the problem is that elitist intellectuals who hold fast to their liberalism as though it were divine fail to make this distinction.
    
    Also, you're right, I'm not that special. So you've proven my point, and spotted my sarcasm. Congratulations. The reality is that most Americans come from some type of mixed heritage. It only shows that here in the States more indivuals are more receptive to immigration AND to people of different races than many liberal educators would have you believe. If Harvard conducts a statistical analysis that proves more people of mixed-heritage occupy this land, then how can any open-minded individual adhere to the belief that racism is proliferating exponentially? So, what you're suggesting is that son or daughter is racially biased against the indivual who brought him into existence? Puh-leaze. What I'm trying to point out is that thanks to Civil Rights and Liberalism, and time, old wounds are indeed starting to heal; people are more receptive and open-minded to change than what people are suggesting. However, you have a strong, though small, liberal faction guilty of making the whole the sum of ONE part. Implicit in conservative-liberal ideology is the assumption that racism will never go away--my own point of view is that it won't entirely disappear: one race very well will be at odds with another, but, here is where conservative-liberalism falls short, IT DOES CHANGE, and it DOES DISAPPEAR.
    
    For example, the reason nobody tells your mother to go "go back to where she came from" is because time has changed. You must remember that early on in our history the Irish were viewed with prejudice, so where some Slavs, so were some Germanic groups. If the prejudice has changed, it's because the politics, like invisible tectontic plates shifting and changing with time and circumstance, have changed the landscape of the prejudice. When we were at odds with Germany in WWI and II, a slew of ethnic derogatives pertaining to the german people proliferated during that time. But now they have nearly vanished. How can this be? What happened? Conservative-liberal doctrine assumes the static constant of race, so technically speaking, everyone in the U.S. should be, pardon my term, "Kraut" haters.
    
    The reason is because the underlying politics have changed, and time has healed old wounds, but not necessarily every wound.
    
    Early on, American literature of the turn of the 20th century was fascinated and enthralled with Arab culture. More to the point, American culture was fascinated with the same. This was reflected in our cinema (think Rudolph Valentino and the early works of the silent masters), and it came through certain movements or interpretations of the Art-Deco movement (Personally, I think Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" (1957) was one of the last paeans to our mystical fascination with the "mysterious" Middle East--but just to clarify Lean was British making a film for American audiences). But the fact remains, that because the platelets of American politics are shifting against Iran, it makes sense and is entirely foreseeable that new anti-Middle Eastern prejudice will be rekindled.
    
    In short, politics change, and the racial discourse surrounding politics change. Now that we both agree that this happens and has happened, is it not conceivable that the racial politics against blacks might one day be inexistent? And couldn't we further surmise that our prejudice might be directed toward another minority, which has, up to this point, flown under the radar, but which in the future will be in conflict with us?
    
    Implicit in my argument is that conservative-liberalism assumes that these things won't happen. They're always looking for new ways to spot racism and to spot prejudice without making distinctions between the old and new. You look at the vast conservative-liberal discourse out there, and it moves from reality to abstraction, so that we no longer speak of real physical colonization, but we speak of "cultural colonization" or "mental colonization" or all these other fancy abstract buzz words to make us feel we're the sophistos we really aren't.
    
    I see the discourse surrounding immigration to be filled with the same. Because the argument for illegal immigration can't stand up to fact, and it can't be sustained by statistical analyis; so it must retreat and find sanctity in emotion, which everyone feels.
    
    The reason, the small percentage of Mexican Liberals who believe there's no need to assimilate is the single greaste threat to illegal immigration is because they contribute fear to their opponents. Moreover, they are creating, forgive me for sounding very sophisto, "a ghetto mentality," that is a great diservice to their people. There is no reason a Mexican shouldn't learn English outside of politics. My comment about children in France and Italy learning English assumed they were learning English as a secondary and not primary language, so, once again, you prove my point. It would be nice if Mexicans even tried to learn it as a second language. But you have a percentage of people who don't want English to exist altogether. It doesn't make sense on a practical level (even bilingual is better than monolingual), unless you do harbor a personal desire to see parts of the united-states geo-politically redrawn. The first step towards doing this is language. The reason the Greeks of the Cyclades were able to remain unified against Persian attack for so long is because they had a unified language that remained intact despite their geographic division (they also had a shared culture--the Olympics were a unifying force).
    
    These people are the greatest threat to the rest of the people they represent, because their personal politics are not actually representative of those people. When politics gets in the way of pragmitism, it's messy business for everyone involved. You make decisions for the wrong reasons. I believe these people are willfully conflating the immigration debate to push their agenda. If they were really concerned for the welfare of their people, you would have certain individuals supporting bilingualism because of all its meritorial and economic benefits.
    
    Penultimate clarification: When I pointed out my status as citizen of mixed ancenstry, I also meant to point out that I have relatives in Mexico, in Tijuana, and Ensenada, whom I visit regularly. I also should point out that I read and listen to Mexican politics, and I'm well acquainted with Mexico's culture which is my own. Prior to going to college, I also lived at an orphanage in Mexico, called "Colina de Luz" for nearly a year, investing myself into the lives of the peasantry with the determination of an ethnographic filmmaker. Just thought that should be clarified.
    
    Ultimate statement: Your politics are atavistic. You are structuralism before post; you are old-school feminism opposed to the new; you are Classics professor teaching that Latin is the proper language when Greek is the popular. I am the new liberalism, purged, and purified, until I am destroyed by a better ideology. If you can't see beyond conservative-liberalism, you are in danger of becoming extinct. My challenge is that you try.
19. IrrationalPoint Says:
    September 8th, 2006 at 4:31 am "For example, the reason nobody tells your mother to go "go back to where she came from" is because time has changed."
    
    No no no no. Lots of people tell my mother to "go back where she came from". Lots of people. Even though she's here legally. Even though her English is great. The *assumption* is that she shouldn't be here. Nobody tells my English father to go back where he came from.
    
    I've yet to hear someone say that English shouldn't exist. An awful lot of Latin Americans learn English as a second language at school in Latin America. I have heard people suggest that documents should exist in English and Spanish so that recent immigrants can fill them out without too much trouble. You know what? I don't think that's unreasonable -- for practical rather than political reasons. And yes, I'm all for free English language classes, but there jsut aren't enough of them, and a lot of people don't have access to them or don't know they exist in their area. So they're not as useful as they could be.
    
    "Immigration is primarily a hispanic issue because it has become latinized by those hispanics who right now comprise the largest pro-immigration organizing force here in the States. It's really as simple as that. Americans feel the need to respond to this contingent and to the politics they purport because they are the most vocal."
    
    You don't think that immigration is a hispanic issue because they border that we're talking about "securing" is the border with Mexico? Is it coincidence that nobody's talking about the border with Canada, or the points of entry at every single international airport in this country, through which people could be entering the US illegally from any of dozens of non-Latin-American countries?
    
    Compromise? How so?
    
    --IP

Leave a Comment