by Amani Rashid –
Chancellor Katehi believes the answer to that question takes the form of subcommittees and guest speakers. As admirable as her efforts to reach a utopia of peaceful cultural and racial integration are, many students just don’t think she’s hitting the nail on the head with this one.
“I really do appreciate the fact that the Chancellor is taking a firm stance against hate crimes but something like a “Rapid Response Team” is just not going to cut it and here’s why; the Rapid Response Team addresses incidents of hate crimes when reported, well they can’t do much if the problem is that nobody reports them.”
Archie Johnston, a fourth year math major, poses an argument worth considering.
Last year when I was looking at statistics for crimes committed on campus, I found that in the year 2009 hate crime rates were at only one percent. As I stood there in disbelief a friend of mine pointed out that the statistic was so low because nobody really reports hate crimes; a very alarming fact.
If we have pamphlets and self defense seminars that urge girls to report rape why don’t we focus the same kind of energy on encouraging people to report hate crimes; do we have to wait for a crime as heinous as a noose in a library to start paying attention? Does it not seem like a step in the right direction; after all you can’t fix something if you don’t know what broke it to begin with.
Some students think we are going about the issue of hate crimes and racial intolerance all wrong. “I’m not saying this is always the case, but, sometimes hate crimes aren’t as much of a widespread problem as they are an isolated incident of one kid in college who decided to do something really stupid.”
Levon Gibson, a second year economics major, explained that maybe all the hate crimes that happened last year weren’t the result of pandemic racism across campuses nationwide but instead the acts of distasteful vandalism on the part of select individuals.
Eric Meyers, a third year Spanish major, agreed: “As an African American living in Davis I’m not going to lie, there are times I feel judged and profiled but what really upsets me is not the intolerance and ignorance embedded in the student body; it is the fact that a crime occurred and all we did was use it to spur a damn social movement; where was the court case? The investigation? Were fingerprints even taken? Yes, what was written on the LGBTRC was wrong and offensive but we must firstly treat it as the illegal act of vandalism that it was!”
Leticia Briant, a fourth year English major, rationally stated: “We can put on the show of guest speakers and “Hate-free initiatives” but the truth is this issue of community divides isn’t necessarily an issue of racism and hatred I think it’s more of a combination of two other things: first and foremost, there is always a level of comfort attached to “sticking to your own kind”; second, the problem isn’t necessarily that we don’t tolerate each other it’s just that we don’t get each other.”
I’m going to have to agree with her on this one. I attended a high school, with a population that was relatively racially homogenous, in the Middle East, and when it came to social cliques it surpassed the absurd divide of Arabs versus non-Arabs and entered the realm of interracial divides, such as, Egyptians versus Syrians. It was never a matter of racism simply a case of the ease of being around those who share your historical and cultural heritage.
Several students debated a point rarely brought to light: what constitutes as a minority on our campus anyway? Andrea Lean, a fourth year cell biology major, stated: “I’m Chinese, technically the minority however I’m going to go ahead and say that it takes all of two hours in Davis to figure out that here on this campus, I’m not so much the minority.”
Mario Gargov, a first year computer science major, angrily pointed out: “I’m of Eastern European Descent, do you know how little of us exist who still connect with our heritage on this campus? As a Bulgarian I think I’m a minority I think I need to raise awareness, but am I allowed to say that; hell no, because my white skin makes it taboo!”
His friend Andrew Gospodinov, a fourth year civil engineering major, pointed out that “the first mistake made is trying to point fingers at one another. Sometimes it’s the white man’s fault other times it’s the Arab’s, but the idea of racism and racial intolerance is not anyone’s fault it is a problem deep rooted in society as a whole and all we can do is keep trying to attack it from all angles and hope we strike gold!”
Will Chancellor Katehi’s campaign to promote tolerance on campus be successful? Probably not but only time will tell; is it all a PC charade or is it a genuine effort to wipe out hate crimes from the face of the campus? It’s probably a little of both, but most students think it an Oscar-worthy performance to save her ass and silence the masses. However, in her defense, very few students could come up with a clear cut solution to the debacle because there simply is no clear cut solution.
What really gets me out of all this controversy and debate is the use of the word “tolerance”. We throw the word around liberally as the superman to the Lex Luther that is racism. The thing is, usually the word tolerance is associated with putting up with something you don’t want to.
I’m just saying, maybe “understanding other races” versus “tolerating other races” carries a more pleasant ring to it.
David, I understand your objection to the use of the word “tolerating”. I would like to suggest the use of the word “appreciating” rather than either ” tolerating” or “understanding”. It is possible to “understand” the ideas, philosophy, culture, etc of the “other” group and still be completely opposed to them for no reason than their “otherness”. Once one starts to develop an appreciation for that which is different, it is much harder to label negatively.
I always thought that one advantage of electronic media such as the vanguard was that they eliminated the waste of paper of traditional printed news media. After all, what could an article with zero insight actually waste? A few electrons maybe?
Now I am thinking that maybe electrons should be preserved.
“I would like to suggest the use of the word “appreciating” rather than either ” tolerating” or “understanding”.”
Thanks medwoman, great idea.
I’m a middle aged white male and would love to feel “appreciated”.
Here’s my take on this issue:
It is still unclear to me who exactly wrote the messages on campus and why. Having said that, I’ll make a few observations:
1. very polarizing figures, movements, and viewpoints are promoted at college campuses on a daily basis. examples:
a. the black panthers were invited to UC Davis to speak.
b. Ward Churchill – who all but said the 911 victim deserved what they got – was also invited
c. students for justice in palestine come to mind.
All of this polarization, movements, is only going to head to a collision – hardly movements in my eye that promote understanding of others – they promote an ITS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY PHILOSOPHY that quite frankly, I resent.
All of those marches, also promote an ITS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY PHILOSOPY. They can only serve to promote intolerance.
“All of this polarization, movements, is only going to head to a collision – hardly movements in my eye that promote understanding of others – they promote an ITS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY PHILOSOPHY that quite frankly, I resent.
All of those marches, also promote an ITS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY PHILOSOPY. They can only serve to promote intolerance.”
Musser, you hit the nail on the head. That’s exactly what I got out of reading the article.
“Guest speakers are cool and all but more often than not they are preaching to the choir; if we want reach out to those who don’t get it then fancy guest speakers are not the answer.”
Very thought provoking article, w good insight. I tend to agree w student assessments that the speeches, etc. are mere window dressing, and do not really get at the heart of the problem. My guess is the Davis campus is pretty “tolerant” as a rule, but there is always going to be a tiny contingent of trouble makers. And it is these actual vandals that need to be found. There are ways to do that, but you have to have a campus administration committed to going the extra mile – such as installing cameras in strategic locations; taking fingerprints.
I would also point out that hysteria at vandalism like this only “fuels the fire” and gives the vandals the attention they are seeking. I think the far better approach is for everyone to pretty much ignore the vandalism as a childish prank that deserves a yawn or “ho hum”, while the campus police goes about its business of serious investigation behind the scenes. The more the victim reacts, the more the victims are likely to be the target of this kind of behavior.
I would also remind students that this sort of thing is a carryover from bullying in grade school, and you don’t have to be a minority to be the object of ridicule. My son was unmercifully bullied all throughout his public school days bc he was small for his size and an easy target, and was a quiet student. Yet he was NOT A MINORITY but white. Bullying of this sort is not exclusive to minorities. The bullying thankfully stopped once he went to college – so he really enjoyed his junior college and university years, much of his time pleasantly spent on the UCD campus.
Rusty49
Seek no more. I appreciate reading your comments on a regular basis. I see value in considering points of view differing from my own.
Musser – my comment to rusty49 would also apply to my appreciation for you. However I cannot agree that allowing polarizing groups to speak on campus is only going to lead to a collision. I feel that the right to free speech trumps any personal preference that you or I may hold about the content of that speech. Invitations to other individuals whose speech I also find polarizing and who have wielded far more influence, Sarah Palin for one have also received invitations to speak on UC campuses. I think a university campus is an appropriate venue for speakers with a wide variety of views. Exposure to such ideas is just as likely to encourage thought that is able to appreciate the background and world view of these individuals while rejecting their more extreme, and sometimes, very ugly conclusions.
Elaine,
While I largely agree with your comments about focusing on identification of the Individual vandals, I am not so sure about your remaining points. I think that there may be something deeper and potentially more dangerous about this type of behavior when extended into early adulthood. My concern would be that ignoring the behavior, rather than extinguishing it, could lead to escalation. This is way outside of my field. I am wondering if anyone has any data or specific knowledge in this area ?
To medwoman: I think you missed my point – so obviously I could have done a better job in making it. I was not advocating for ignoring the vandalism, but addressing it in an alternative way: 1) publicly ignore the incident rather than raising hysteria, bc it is the hysteria that the vandals are looking for; 2) MEANWHILE BEHIND THE SCENES vigorously investigate the vandalism to catch the perpetrators; 3) in aid of any potential investigation proactively plant cameras in strategic locations, do fingerprint analysis when possible.
As to your point about a campus being a bastion of free speech, that is all well and good if the speakers are not predominantly of an extreme view. But it seems lately as if those invited to speak are of the more polarizing variety only. And some like Ward Churchill are so lacking in credibility as to be not worthy of consideration to invite. And it often appears as if the speakers chosen are predominantly of a liberal viewpoint. How would you feel about a representative from the KKK speaking? I certainly would not advocate for that sort of polarizing view on campus. I think colleges can invite controversial speakers, but have to take care that there be some balance, including on noncontroversial subjects, orators they invite have some creditworthiness, and material should be somewhat relevant to the college experience. That lets Ward Churchill out IMHO…
EMR
You did a fine job of explaining your point which I did indeed understand. I may have taken your comparison with bullying a little too literally. However, I feel that both approaches, behind the scenes investigation, and public denunciation of these kinds of activities ( not hysteria) have a role .
As for your specific examples of Ward Churchill and the KKK, I tend to agree. The problem of course is that I suspect there might be disagreement on where we would draw the line with less egregious ( to us) examples. I think at some point we have to have some faith in the ability of our young adults ti discern the worthiness, or lack thereof of the position being put forward.
On tolerance… on diversity…. on inclusion…
These are all fundamental individual moral issues. When they are legislated instead of being taught in the home and church as being our individual responsibility, we will eventually return to intolerance, classism and tribalism.
JB
Why do you feel that it matters where we learn these principles are our individual responsibility, as long as we learn it ?
medwoman:
The civil rights movement was essentially an acceleration of a transformation of race relations that started before the civil war as enough individuals began to reject slavery on moral grounds. It was certainly wrong, but the legislation of forced: racial tolerance, acceptance of racial diversity, and racial inclusion, created deadly intolerance, classism and tribalism. I’m not saying that the end did not justify the means. However, we will never know what a grass-root moral movement might have achieved.
When someone other than your family or your religion teaches morality, it does so not from a place of love and selflessness, but from a place of selfishness. Educators and politicians do not possess the credentials, let alone the natural incentives, to be entrusted with the keys to what constitutes moral behavior. Your pick of right and wrong, if not based on your unconditional love of me or some well worn spiritual guide, will be designed to benefit you. Mine will be designed to benefit me. Despite our claims of some higher calling, we will pursue our self interests and objectify our morality in order to achieve personal goals or wants.
We need our social and political leaders to practice moral behavior (thanks Bill Clinton for teaching the US it is okay to lie) and create safe environments where it can be discussed and debated; but when morality is legislated (forced by rule-makers) it can only naturally serve to benefit one or more groups at the expense of the others. This then leads us back to a situation of reverse intolerance, classism and tribalism.
The exception to this is something called “natural rights”. Our constitution covers these.
Jeff, morality wasn’t legislated by the civil rights acts. Behavior was. IMO there is nothing wrong with the government establishing that discriminatory behavior is illegal in housing or jobs. If we were waiting for a grass-roots moral movement, real estate agents might still be refusing to show houses in some neighborhoods to blacks, Jews, or same-sex couples, based on their own beliefs (which they considered moral, I’m sure).
Many educators are, in fact, capable of teaching ethical choices. So are many ministers and parents.
Not to digress, but I really don’t think Bill Clinton was the first president to lie to us.
JB
Perhaps Bill Clinton learned it was ok to lie from Richard Nixon. But I digress.
All group behavior consists of the actions of individuals. I do not believe that labeling someone a politician makes them any more or less moral than say teachers as a group, or preachers as a group ( the Catholic priest travesties for example), or parents as a group.
If a child’s family is full of hatred for others, that is likely what the child will learn. Not everyone has been so fortunate as to be born into a kind loving, inclusive family and pretending that this is the only way to become a caring,loving human being does not make it so. There are many paths to becoming a caring human being. Religion has no monopoly in this nor does any particular family structure.
Don:
Don, morality certainly was legislated (forced from top-down).
From Wikipedia:
[quote] Morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).[/quote] It was legislation that forced those schools to be integrated. If you supported this legislation (I include the courts in this since it is just another branch of government), you did so because of your morality… meaning you thought that racial segregation was morally wrong and wanted others to be forced to stop behaving in ways you thought to be immoral.
To prove my point… just think about how the races are segregated today. Legislated morality in this case has created a new kind of classism and tribalism. It always does. The reason is that individuals did not have to develop a moral compass for this… they were effectively told what to do and their hearts never had the chance to change.
I think some teachers are capable to teach morality up to the point that it would impact something they valued more than the welfare of the student… for example thier job security, pay and pension.
Bill Clinton wasn’t the first politician to lie, and won’t be the last. But he was the only one besides Nixon that told a bald-faced lie on national television. It was also about something that almost everyone could relate to (unlike Nixon who lied for politics). I think Clinton’s lie was a transformational cultural crucible. Maybe Bernie Madoff would have done his deeds despite what Clinton seemed to teach us all in that moment; however, our society certainly did seem to lose its moral compass about that time.
medwoman
What is “right” and what is “wrong” are subjective decisions unless they are natural rights. Legislating morality beyond natural rights is a dangerous game for this reason. The job should only be entrusted to those with heart in the game unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of allowing others with only brain in the game to force certain behavior. For example, I’m sure you support forcing others to accept gay marriage because you see it as being right. In my view, the better approach is for families and congregations to deal with this topic, and society to allow civil but passionate debate on the subject. However, since we have the top-down morality police ready to pounce, there is no real debate possible. And, if this is forced before enough hearts are transformed, it will cause more long-term intolerance and tribalism to fester.
The Incas thought it was right to sacrifice virgins. The Spaniards put a top-down stop to that, didn’t they?
You seriously believe that people who are suffering the indignities and injustices of outright discrimination should wait until “hearts” change and “families and congregations deal” with bigotry, poorer housing choices, underfunded schools, job discrimination? Many of the same people you are hoping would have led that change — ministers and parents — practiced the discrimination, used their religious teachings to enable the behaviors, and taught their children to be bigots.
When individuals are suffering discrimination, it has frequently been up to the government to redress that where states and local governments not merely fail to protect the individual rights but frequently abetted discrimination.
To somehow blame the legislated approach for the outcome of “more long-term intolerance and tribalism” is illogical. The intolerance and tribalism continue; they were always there. Legislation simply makes it more difficult to practice them. It makes it such that society no longer openly tolerates bigotry; public officials no longer wink and look the other way; real estate agents know there will be legal sanctions if they continue their racist practices.
The government is protecting individuals and encoding equal opportunity, equal housing, equal rights as a matter of law.
Don: So then, how do you explain that almost 60 years after the beginning of the civil rights movement we still have so much rampant racism (I am guessing you believe this to be true)? We need legislated hate crime laws? We have segregated neighborhoods? Can you describe to me a vision of society where race relations exist in sufficient harmony that David no longer has to keep an eye on the Davis police? You could say things are better now for blacks than in 1950, but I could come back with many things that are worse. For how many years do we add new top-down rules to make everyone equal before you and others realize it is not the top-down rules that fix the root of the problem?
What is your solution to wipe out bigotry… Implement laws to punish people that behave in ways that you can label as bigoted? What about the war on poverty… how long have we been fighting that war?… how much have we spent so far? Maybe we need a surge so we can eventually pull out. “Poorer housing choices”… you know my son lives in a poorer house now because he is going to college and cannot yet afford a richer house. So, what is your vision for fixing this problem… give poor people better houses? “Underfunded schools”… they are not underfunded… they are under-performing. In any case, is your solution to just give them more money?
I had an interesting and passionate political discussion with some dear friends of mine. We both like the AMT TV program Mad Men set in the early 1960s. There was a scene with a family having a picnic where they shake all of their trash off a blanket onto the park grass and then leave. I told my friends that this was example of the Hollyweird amplifying current things PC and right and relevant because they thing the past is not worthy of romanticizing. My friends howled at that premise. However, my father and mother – devout Christians of very limited means – taught me to not litter and to make the park and campground cleaner when we leave it. I teach my kids the same. Conversely, my friends – well educated, well-off, environmentally-conscience New England liberals – told me that they would just chuck beer cans and trash out the window all though high school and college. They have no children.
This really got me thinking about some of our ideological differences… and possible why they and other liberals demand so many top-down rules to live by. Either were not taught by their parents, or they otherwise they ignored what they were taught, they don’t trust that others to do the right things without legislated morality. Frankly, I think they have low expectations of others because of their memory of being somewhat out of control.
It seems that the baby boomer generation has a high percentage of people with this same mindset. Apparently they should have been disciplined by their loving parents more as children for littering so they would not feel a need for nanny government to act as non-loving surrogate parents for others. They and you seem to see government-control as the solution for things that I think should be taught in the family and the private communities they associate with. I see the government-control solutions as only masking the causes of racism which are the same as ignorance.
[quote][u]David (3/26/11)[/u]: [s]”By the way, I hate the word ‘tolerance’, as it implies something artificial, like you are tolerating a bad odor.”[/s]
[u]Amani (4/1/11)[/u]: What really gets me out of all this controversy and debate is the use of the word ‘tolerance’. We throw the word around liberally as the superman to the Lex Luther that is racism. The thing is, usually the word tolerance is associated with putting up with something you don’t want to.”[/quote][u]JS (3/26/11)[/u]: [s]David:[/s] Amani: You’ve got a point about the (mis)use of this word–maybe Chancellor Katehi and you (and David) agree on the issue. All the more reason to wonder why you selected the word to use eight times in your write-up while she didn’t choose to use it a single time in her text….
…As I read her [u]Enterprise[/u] op-ed, it appears UCD has been active in doing things that universities do. She is identifying and acknowledging the hate incident problem at the Davis campus, reinforcing standards for equality and civility, committing to swift action in case of future incidents, bringing diversity educational opportunities to campus, engaging all involved in UCD in the initiative, undertaking related research, funding campus group proposals for “activities that promote a hate-free, bias-free campus,” etc.).
It’s interesting, Amani, what a variety of responses you got from your half-dozen interviews. As you noted: [quote]”… in her (Chancellor Katehi’s) defense, very few students could come up with a clear cut solution to the debacle because there simply is no clear cut solution.”[/quote] Most people (not just students) have opinions on the difficult and sensitive issue of “hate crimes,” but nobody seems to have come up with a way to prevent them from happening in all these years.
I haven’t yet heard anyone claim to have a better plan for UCD. So, let’s give Dr. Katehi credit for taking action that may have had something to do with the fact that there hasn’t been another UCD “hate crime” incident since.
She’s inviting students and others to help improve the Hate-Free Campus Initiative:[quote]”This is an outline rather than a fully drawn plan because we want our entire campus community to contribute ideas, suggestions and proposals for programming under this broad-ranging (initiative).” [/quote]The folks you interviewed might be interested in trying to make a difference by joining the effort.
[i]Don: So then, how do you explain that almost 60 years after the beginning of the civil rights movement we still have so much rampant racism (I am guessing you believe this to be true)?[/i]
Racism is less overt than it was 60 years ago. More to the point, racist behavior is not permitted in the rental or sale of housing, hiring and firing, etc.
[i] We need legislated hate crime laws? [/i]
I have mixed feelings about hate crime laws.
[i]We have segregated neighborhoods? [/i]
Less than we did 60 years ago. Interesting you should mention that. 60 years ago my parents built their home where they did in San Diego because realtors there would not sell homes to people with certain types of surnames. Thus most of the Jewish-named neighbors I grew up with.
[i]Can you describe to me a vision of society where race relations exist in sufficient harmony that David no longer has to keep an eye on the Davis police? [/i]
No.
[i]You could say things are better now for blacks than in 1950, but I could come back with many things that are worse. [/i]
Yeah, right. I won’t try to answer this one. I’m not black.
[i]For how many years do we add new top-down rules to make everyone equal before you and others realize it is not the top-down rules that fix the root of the problem? [/i]
We don’t “make everyone equal.” We make it illegal to discriminate.
[i]What is your solution to wipe out bigotry… Implement laws to punish people that behave in ways that you can label as bigoted? [/i]
Yes.
[i]What about the war on poverty… how long have we been fighting that war?… how much have we spent so far? [/i]
Different topic entirely. I am talking about discrimination. But I favor government providing a safety net for our poorest citizens.
[i]”Poorer housing choices”… you know my son lives in a poorer house now because he is going to college and cannot yet afford a richer house. So, what is your vision for fixing this problem… give poor people better houses? [/i]
I am guessing your son never experienced difficulty renting or buying a house because of the color of his skin or his surname, or his sexual orientation.
[i]”Underfunded schools”… they are not underfunded… they are under-performing. In any case, is your solution to just give them more money?[/i]
You are aware that minority-populated school districts used to get much lower funding than other districts? I believe school district funding should not be based on property taxes, since that led to clearly unequal funding of districts with the result that predominantly ethnic communities received far less per pupil than did predominantly white communities. But that problem has been taken care of.
[i]my father and mother – devout Christians of very limited means – taught me to not litter and to make the park and campground cleaner when we leave it. I teach my kids the same.[/i]
Funny, my parents taught me the same thing. But they weren’t devout, Christian or otherwise.
JB
If by “accept gay marriages” you mean approve of them, then no I absolutely do not favor that.
If what you mean is to prohibit discrimination against a couple by not selling a house to them, allowing equal financial treatment or hospital visitation rights, etc., the answer is yes.
Not all who call themselves Christian are so benign in their teachings.. I am sure that the leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church feel that they are teaching their children correct moral principles. I would not agree. Adjudicating the differences that arise when individuals have strong, but differing moral principles, is a proper and necessary function of the government. And while I agree with the decision protecting their right to free speech, I would never defend their “right” to discriminate against gays in any of the ways mentioned.
I would be interested in your examples of how blacks are worse offf today than in the 50s.
I’m afraid I missed your point about the Incas and the Spaniards. The only thing I can derive from this is that by your standard of teaching,neither group must have had very loving, caring parents.
Don Shor
I have a love hate relationship with your posts. Love the thoughtful comments Hate it that you usually express it more eloquently that I can !
Very interesting discussion. Let me add some context. A good friend of mine, who is an Asian male, was not able to find an apartment to rent anywhere when he landed a gov’t job near Baltimore in the 1970’s. No landlord would rent to an Asian in that area. I don’t agree that he should have to wait for a grass roots movement to be able to rent an apartment so he has a place to live and work. To be shut out of the housing market like that is to effectively be prevented from finding work.
I grew up in the South, where I remember seeing “Whites Only” signs in grocery stores. Had the federal gov’t not stepped in, there would still be segregated public universities in the South, shut off to all but white students. I assure you, to many in the South, the Confederacy is still alive and well in their hearts. There are pockets of KKK everywhere in the South, to this day, even tho the Southern politicians would have you believe otherwise.
The Constitution is not sufficient in cases like these, bc the Constitution is not a perfect document that spells out with enough specificity what everyone’s inalienable rights are and who exactly “everyone” is. Remember, that in the days of the Constitution’s creation, only the landed white men were allowed the vote, despite the Constitution’s language that “all men are created equal”. And note the language “all MEN”. Women and African Americans were not even considered as more than mere chattel in the days when the Constitution was written.
The founding fathers understood the limitations of the Constitution, and laid out methods of changing the law properly from within the Constitution’s framework. Even that has its flaws, as does every institution involving human beings, who by their very nature are imperfect. I think the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves to think the Constitution has been used to promote elephant dung on canvas as an art form; or exotic dancing (and I am being kind in my verbiage here) as art.
The gov’t’s proper role is to regulate, but where to draw the yellow lines is the real question, and many will disagree on where that should be. But drawing lines is precisely what the Constitution mandates. I come from the state of MD, which had the very last censor board in the country. If I had my way, we would bring back censor boards, considering the filth that is being generated by Hollywood these days. But that will never happen bc I am probably an extreme minority view on this issue. I accept that limitation in order to live in a free society. Majority rules, but neither should there be a tyranny of the majority against a minority either.
In short, the founding fathers envisioned the Constitution as an ever changing document, supplemented by state laws. The Constitution is not fixed in stone as many would think. But there is great debate on where to draw those pesky yellow lines. I would like to keep sex ed as it stands now out of the classroom and in the home bc the morality being taught in schools is not my idea of what is appropriate; but I do want the gov’t to make sure their is a level playing field for minorities to live and work wherever they want. However, I would like the gov’t to take a more active role in eliminating obscene material from our air waves to discourage children from engaging in indiscriminant sex. And I want the gov’t to regulate business to the extent they are not permitted to scam the public, which is its own form of “morality”. Ethics and morality is all around us and in everything we do. It must by necessity be incorporated into our laws and regulations – it is merely a question of where do we draw those annoying yellow lines that limit the freedom of some to act unethically… i
Musser – my comment to rusty49 would also apply to my appreciation for you. However I cannot agree that allowing polarizing groups to speak on campus is only going to lead to a collision. I feel that the right to free speech trumps any personal preference that you or I may hold about the content of that speech. Invitations to other individuals whose speech I also find polarizing and who have wielded far more influence, Sarah Palin for one have also received invitations to speak on UC campuses. I think a university campus is an appropriate venue for speakers with a wide variety of views. Exposure to such ideas is just as likely to encourage thought that is able to appreciate the background and world view of these individuals while rejecting their more extreme, and sometimes, very ugly conclusions.
1. I don’t think it is a free speech issue. The university chooses who it wants to speak.
2. extremists invited to speak on campus don’t really provoke dialogue, they only provoke. shouting “tear down the system” (or the equivalent) is more incindiary than anything else.
3. when extremists grab the spotlight, they shove out everyone else, especially people in the center. When was the last time someone was invited to speak on campus who says, “sometimes you need to go to war, sometimes you dont” or, “there are varying opinions on the theory of global warming”
Musser –
Musser
1) I think that is a fine line with regard to an invitation precluding this being a free speech issue, but will cede that point to you.
2) I disagree that extremists do not provoke dialogue. While they themselves may not be interested in an open dialogue, I can remember many very lively discussions with friends after provocative speakers were on campus. I do not fear our young people being exposed to strongly held beliefs whether or not they agree with mine. I see one legitimate role of a university is to expose students to ideas to which they may not have been introduced in their homes, churches or high schools.
3) I don’t see it as the role of invited speakers to present a balanced picture. The speakers role is to make their strongest argument for their point of view. Our schools should be helping students to develop critical thinking skills that enable them to evaluate the merits of an argument being made by a speaker and to have the ability to articulate their support or disagreement those views.
Don: Nice response. We think differently, but I respect your points.
[i]”I would be interested in your examples of how blacks are worse off today than in the 50s”[/i]
I stated that wrong… what I meant to say/write: blacks are worse off now than they could have been if we our civil rights movement had been a grass-roots, bottom-up, heart-felt moral progression rather than top-down legislated/forced morality. It might have taken the country longer, but I think we would have been more racially harmonious at this point, and blacks would be better off.
72 Percent of African-American Children Born to Unwed Mothers
2.4% of African-Americans are incarcerated… about 12% of all AA males
Only about 50% of blacks graduate from high school.
Note that I think natural rights provide for preventing material discrimination…like preventing persons of certain races to rent. However, they don’t support de-segregating schools. They don’t support hate crime laws. They also don’t support forcing a change in the definition of marriage.
[i]”There are pockets of KKK everywhere in the South”[/i]
I am not supportive of the existence of the KKK, but how do you reconcile this with the Black Panthers, the Black Caucus, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright? My suspicion is that the KKK still exists because many poor whites feel marginalized by what has been forced upon them by their government, which as W pointed out “is not a loving institution”.
The concept that I am pushing here (obviously ineffectively) is the difference between rules and punishment to control behavior, versus inclusively educating individuals to make better decisions on moral grounds. Plastic bags are an example of this: liberal/progressives demanding top-down rules to force their morality on others, versus open dialog and grass-roots education so that people make better choices. I support the proliferation of objective social, cultural, scientific and economic fact-based debate, and government implemented financial incentives as a way to encourage people to behave in ways we eventually agree best benefit and least damage us. The alternative top-down rule-makers are often too narrow-focused and short-sighted, and the implementation of stick-instead-of-carrot controls becomes a false progression as individuals continue to rebel in private, even as they conform in public.
Elaine:
From Wikipedia:
[quote]Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.[/quote]
Discrimation was/is covered by the concept of natural rights. However, we legally over-compensated and progressives continue to do so on many issues.
The term “progress” is subjective. I think the trends for campus political-correctness has been more regressive since the civil rights movement. The thought police want to legislate the dialog. That is not only not a natural right, but it destroys a key natural right.
JB
” The concept that I am pushing here… Is the difference between rules and punishment to control behavior, versus inclusively educating individuals to make better decisions on moral grounds. “
In a world in which everyone agreed on what was a “better decision” and what are ” moral grounds” I would completely agree with you.
However, we do not live in that world. A couple of examples:
I do not agree with the devoutly held belief of the Westboro Baptist Church that ” God hates fags.” and therefore we should too.
Elaine and I are in agreement that it is those pesky lines that are the problem. She would like to see censorship. While I share her distaste for obscenity, I am not sure that we would agree on the application of this term in specific instances. In her recent post, Elaine ( please correct me if i am wrong) seems to be limiting her use of the word to issues of sexuality. As a gynecologist, I suspect I hold a broader range of what is
normal and acceptable human behavior than in this area than she. If we use the definition of the word obscenity, also in the dictionary,to mean abominable, then as a pacifist, I would include those recruiting adds on TV for various branches of the military which portray valiant young men and women performing heroic feats to inspiring music while conveniently neglecting to balance with images of watching your best friend have both legs blown off by an IED. Elaine is right and we will both have to accept some of what we consider obscenity to live in a free society.
And while JB I tend to agree with you that a “top down” approach is probably not the best for issues such as plastic bags, the left has no monopoly on wanting to legislate morality. It tends to be the political right that wants to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, both of which there is considerable debate, not unanimity of belief about morality. Oh, those pesky lines !
medwoman: “3) I don’t see it as the role of invited speakers to present a balanced picture. The speakers role is to make their strongest argument for their point of view. Our schools should be helping students to develop critical thinking skills that enable them to evaluate the merits of an argument being made by a speaker and to have the ability to articulate their support or disagreement those views.”
But don’t you think it is necessary to present a balance of speakers, not just the provacateurs on the extreme fringes of one side?
Jeff Boone: “Discrimation was/is covered by the concept of natural rights. However, we legally over-compensated and progressives continue to do so on many issues.”
That just means you disagree w where the lines were/are drawn, and I don’t disagree w you!
ERM
A qualified yes.
Qualified because I believe that our society already is awash is certain beliefs, and therefore no further representation is necessary.
For instance, I believe that it is a widely held belief in our society that the military is a patriotic and valuable institution. Note I am not saying that I disagree with this position. I am saying that I think it would be reasonable to invite a pacifist to come to speak without a counterbalancing speaker from the military.
Another example. The vast majority of Americans state that they believe in God. Therefore I would not object to a speaker who is an agnostic or an atheist without a counter balancing speech from a preacher since the vast majority of students will have already encountered that point of view.
On the different lines we draw…
Agreed. That is the essence of what divides us today. However, the root cause of this division is a lack of traditional things that bind us. Examples include:
– Culture (common perspectives, practices and rituals)
– Religion (common sense of morality)
– Leadership (common shared goals)
Without these common things to anchor our society, we blow with the wind of self interest, and media-injected popular opinion. We more often decide that “right” is what makes us feel good, or what benefits us materially. Searching for others with goals to share, we filter into splintered groups (tribes) and go to war with other tribes.
Top-down, forced rules to live by, splinter us more… especially when they are forced by one tribe over others.
Universities invite atheists and scientists that believe humans evolved from some tarry goop; but forbid anyone with religious convictions to discuss intelligent design.
Obama talks about “winning the hearts and minds” of foreign people plagued with a high percentage of extremists that routinely shout “death to America”; but then fails miserably to even attempt to win the hearts and minds of conservatives in his own country.
European progressives so often praised by US progressives, are now rejecting multiculturalism.
JB
Are you advocating imposing the views of a single culture on others ?
If so, who gets to decide whose culture ?
And would that not be a “top down” enforcement of someone’s values ?
[i]”Are you advocating imposing the views of a single culture on others”[/i]
When you travel to Mexico, it is the Mexican culture you value.
When you travel to France, it is the French culture you value.
When you travel to Africa, it is the African culture you value.
What culture do you value if your are in the the US?
JB
And what do you define as the culture of the US ?
To me that is part of the beauty of the US. Our culture is that of all the groups that have come here for the opportunities this country offers.
Each group brings with them the richness of their culture and we are free to choose that which is best from each. I can find much to value in every culture I have encountered.
How about you ?
medwoman: with all due respect (and I do), you are either skirting or confirming the point I am making.
Culture matters. Inclusion of outside cultures should be like spices being blended into the main course. I think we are losing our main course from too much immigration, too much forced tolerance, too much forced inclusion, too much hyper-sensitivity over words, too much forced “learning” about other cultures, and not enough understanding and protection of what American culture is and should be.
The beauty of the US isn’t simply that it blends all cultures, but that it assimilates them into what is uniquely American. This takes me back full circle to the topic of this article. I agree with David’s points but maybe for slightly different reasons.
So, why are France, Germany and Great Britain all currently preaching the end to multiculturalism? Are they more advanced in their understanding, or are we Americans so exceptional at including so many millions of non-English speaking people from different cultures where poverty, low education, judicial corruption, extreme violence and nonexistent political participation are all normal… that things will turn out different for us? Note that many European liberals now see that they screwed the place up thinking they could open wide their borders and absorb so many from different cultures.
Also, note that I do believe the America I know is different and exceptional, but I see those traits slipping away as we are overwhelmed with so much political correctness and weird apologetic statements of guilt for being who we are. These are really just another form of blind intolerance… but potential more damaging to the greatest society ever in the history of humans.
JB
I am neither skirting nor confirming your point. I simply disagree with it.
I don’t see how in the same post you can both assert your belief in American ” exceptionalusm” ( your last paragraph) and question whether
Americans are exceptional (your second paragraph). Or maybe you feel we are only exceptional when we are being “tribal” namely claiming the superiority of our culture over others.
The problem is Jeff , who is the “we” in “being who we are” ? Are you including the native Americans who preceeded the white male founding fathers, the descendants of slaves, the Chinese who built the railroads, the immigrants who fled many European countries to escape poverty rather than religious persecution, the Jews, the Japanese , the Vietnamese, Laotians , Hmong , Muslims of multiple nationalities ? Or are they included only when they accept your ideals?
Who gets excluded from your “we” Jeff in order to preserve some myth of who “we are”? Who has to give up what portion of their culture and heritage in order to fit into your story of who “we are”?
Where we seem to disagree the most is that I do not believe that it is our identity as Americans that makes us great. It is our actions. When we value others as ourselves and treat all with respect, fairness and compassion, we are truly great. When we boast about our greatness simply because of the circumstances of our birth and our good fortune while devaluing others, we fall short both as individuals and as a nation.
medwoman: Great conversation.
[i]”When we boast about our greatness simply because of the circumstances of our birth and our good fortune while devaluing others, we fall short both as individuals and as a nation.”[/i]
This is one of those “weird apologetic statements of guilt for being who we are”.
Who said I was “devaluing others”. My family has had a second home in Mexico for 23 years up until three years ago until my Mother passed away. I understand the Mexican culture… I love much of Mexican culture. The same goes for other cultures. But I want to visit that culture. I certainly don’t want it, or others, to overwhelm and transform my culture where I live.
In the history of humans, most wars that have been fought have been to prevent this very thing. You mention Native Americans… this is what they fought for, right?
We cannot have our cake and eat it to. We cannot be so inclusive of other cultures to allow an invasion that threatens to make us feel like a stranger in our own land… while we keep moving to a shrinking number of exclusive neighborhoods to isolate oursleves from the impacts. That is disingenuous and elitist.
I have a high school friend who became my unofficial adopted brother in the 1970s. He legally migrated to this country when he was about seven. His parents are wonderful people, but are non-English speaking, uneducated, insecure, and non-participatory. The only reason he pursued and earned his college degree (and it caused him significant conflict with his father who believed that real men should work with their hands and own some livestock), was from his influence with our family. None of his other four siblings did so. He still struggles today reconciling his cultural influences from both families.
Liberal-progressives, I think, tend to not value American culture. In fact, I think many have the opinion that American culture is ugly and needs to change. If you attempt to defend American culture, they label you as being racist, non-inclusive, intolerant, and whatever other derogatory theme they can devise. This is the same that happened in Western Europe until recently. You fail to comment on my point about Europe going anti-multiculturalism. What are your thoughts on that?
I would be very curious what you think “American culture” is. I don’t consider any of the myriad ethnic groups to be “invasive.” There are probably some values that most Americans hold more strongly than do those of many other countries, represented by words like individualism. There are some freedoms that we clearly value more highly than do other cultures, such as freedom of/from religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to own guns. But from my brief travels in the South, the mid-Atlantic states and New England, the Pacific Northwest, whatever you call the Dakotas, and having grown up in California, I would be very hard-pressed to describe an “American culture.”
Fortunately, that doesn’t bother me.
Don: [quote] Worldviews are pervasive in one’s society or culture. They aren’t necessarily spoken of because there is no need to speak of them. Everybody already knows them because they guide most of the society. Natives have lived with the American worldviews for all of their lives, so when they hear the system, they know the answers. But the average immigrant is operating on a different set of worldviews, and the two do not always make sense in cross cultural interactions.
It is important, then, for the new immigrant to understand the system into which s/he is entering so that navigating that system can become more sensible.”[/quote]When we allow too much immigration from outside cultures… and we have enough people bent of protecting these outside cultures from the influence of the traditional American worldview, we effectively lose our culture.
We used to refer to American as a melting pot… meaning that we meld together to form a common model of American. Now we hear it referred to as a “salad bowl”… a model that indicates all the different cultures should co-exist and be equitable in a multicultural state.
I think all other cultures are inferior to traditional American culture. It is the most inclusive, free and prosperous of all past examples. (And please don’t try to use the Netherlands as an example… that little homogenous frozen county we saved from Hitler and has recently taken to rejecting multiculturalism.) Yet, it is not enough… probably never enough… for some hell bent on remaking American into something else. I assume the motivation to do so is a feeling of personal rejection, or not fitting in. They would blindly destroy it to be made to feel better… even if it means and end to many of the things that have made us a country greater than any other.
I guess I need to know what you think are “outside cultures.” Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe? Scots-Irish miners? Swedish farmers?
[i] They aren’t necessarily spoken of because there is no need to speak of them. Everybody already knows them because they guide most of the society.[/i]
I am trying to think of examples of what you mean that [i]everyone[/i] knows. I believe you (and whoever you were quoting) may be projecting your own background and world view onto your neighbors.
Don:
A couple of questions…
What do you think of Sarah Palin’s principles, family and lifestyle? (note, I am assuming you know enough about this to have an opinion).
[i]”Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe? Scots-Irish miners? Swedish farmers”[/i]
How many of these immigrants moved to large neighborhoods of their own people and refused to assimilate… including learning how to speak English?
Wow, that is an interesting question. Not sure what this has to do directly with American culture. But I’ll answer and see what your point was.
I have a very unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin’s politics. She is a populist conservative, and I’m not. I consider her totally unqualified for elected office; I agree with Colin Powell that she doesn’t demonstrate the intellectual rigor we expect of our leaders.
I know little of her family except tabloid stuff, and I know better than to believe that entirely. Perhaps you meant something more specific? I do feel sorry for them, having been thrust into the spotlight without adequate preparation or entirely voluntarily, and I feel no concern about the willingness of some of her family to profit from their celebrity. More power to them.
I’m not sure what you mean by her lifestyle.
Rich Rifkin can provide more information about this, but it is a fact that Jewish immigrants from Europe often live or lived together in tight-knit communities, holding strongly to their culture and retaining unique language patterns. Some assimilate, some completely; others don’t. As is often the case, things get complicated in the next generations.
The Appalachians are heavily populated by people of Scots-Irish background. Some parts of central Appalachia are overwhelmingly white, with cultural and linguistic patterns that have held for generations. The poverty rates, illiteracy, infant mortality rates are very high; by almost any objective measure their conditions are deplorable.
I just threw in Swedish farmers for fun, and because they also happen to be in my kids’ heredity, along with the other ethnicities.
I think the notion that people of various ethnic groups “refuse” to assimilate is not entirely true. Some don’t learn how to speak English very well, but probably enough to get by. Others adopt a mixture. Again, within a couple of generations there is more assimilation. I imagine the English you hear spoken in Appalachia is idiomatic and probably not grammatically very correct.
What seems to bother many conservatives, and possibly you, is the proud retention of cultural behaviors that are different from “ours”, but I think you aren’t noticing the way those change over time. They aren’t doing anything very different than other ethnic groups: practicing their old family customs, adding new ones from their neighbors. European Jews wouldn’t recognize the way American Jews celebrate Chanukah. Hispanic kids go door to door on Hallowe’en, which is uniquely American. My grandmother wouldn’t recognize a lot of the things we eat at Thanksgiving, but we also continue to cook some of the exact same dishes she did.
It’s worth noting that many of them “moved to large neighborhoods of their own people” because of the practices of Anglo real estate agents. The move Gentleman’s Agreement, starring my fellow La Jollan Gregory Peck, was based on the practice of the same name. Though it was set on the east coast, La Jolla had a notorious gentleman’s agreement that finally crumbled when UCSD was built and lured many top scientists to teach and work there. It’s hard to assimilate when you aren’t able to live wherever you want.
Hi Jeff, amazingly enough your comment above about the inferiority of all other cultures has left poor Medwoman momentarily speechless! So, while she’s getting her voice back, I’ve got a couple questions for you since I want to make sure I understand what your beliefs are.
If inclusiveness is a positive American value (which is what I think you were saying) how can Americans not be inclusive and still be better than everybody else? It seems to follow from what you said that being inclusive is good – but being too inclusive is bad.
[i]I think all other cultures are inferior to traditional American culture. It is the most inclusive, free and prosperous of all past examples.[/i]
That’s what some French have said about their own culture. I guess that would be French exceptionalism.
It’s important for everyone to feel proud of their heritage.
JB
1) I said that I believe that you are devaluing others. My evidence? Your own statement “I think all other cultures are inferior to “traditional
American culture”
2) No, the Native Americans were not primarily fighting against the transformation of their culture. They were fighting to prevent their
Extermination. You don’t believe that you are in danger of extermination do you ?
3) You are wrong about the values of at least one liberal-progressive. I definitely value what I perceive are the strengths of “American
Culture”. We agree on the value of inclusiveness. Where we seem to differ is that I believe in it for all. It seems to me that you believe that you, or a certain select group should get to decide how much inclusiveness is too much.
4) We definitely disagree that American culture is superior to every other. Different cultures are better in different ways just as some individuals are better at different skills than others. One small example from the field of medicine. The US has a culture of valuing high tech medical procedures. This makes us far and away the best technical innovator. However there are many other countries that have better neonatal survival rates than we do, largely because their cultural values are such that they provide better prenatal and peripartum care to their mothers and babies. So if what you value is high tech, we are the best. If what you value is infant well being, not so much.
5) I fail to comment on your point about current European views on multiculturalism because I see it as a non point. You can’ t have this one both ways. Either America is exceptional in our inclusivity and therefore not directly comparable to Europe, or we are not so exceptional as you seem to claim in which case maybe we do have some things to learn from our European counterparts. But while we are learning, maybe we could pick up on some of the things they do better than we do, such as supporting their families through those social programs you seem to despise so much.
6) The entire history of America has been about “remaking”. One of the aspects of America that I love the most is our willingness as a nation
to be willing to constantly self assess. To keep what is the best of “our own” culture, whatever one defines that to be, but to adopt that which we see as better from other cultures. In America, we have the freedom not only to pursue change to better ourselves as individuals but also the freedom to attempt to make societal changes where we see faults. It was this capacity for societal change that has enabled us to move beyond the Jim Crow south, to largely regret the internment of the Japanese, to realize that two people have the right to marry regardless of the color of their skin, and yes, hopefully some day regardless of their gender. You see Jeff just like you, I value individual freedom. I just value it equally for everyone whether they happen to agree with me, speak the same language, share the same faith or lack thereof, or the same “culture”. I do not feel threatened by others from other cultures because I see the freedom and inclusiveness in America as it’s greatest strength.
Let’s see if I can address these great responses all at once.
Don: On Sarah Palin… For me, she and her family demonstrate what I value in traditional American culture. In terms of demonstrated intellectual rigor to hold office, I have a bumper sticker on my truck with a picture of Obama and the words “If this is what smart looks like, please bring back stupid”. Being a successful chief executive rarely requires you be the smartest person in the room. In fact, believing you are will usually cause your failure. What matters more is to surround yourself with smart people and have the skills to lead them, and to make critical and timely decisions based on their counsel. I agree that Sarah Palin is not presidential material in this era, but if we are supposed to have a government “by the people and for the people”, why would we not want a model American wife and mother to represent us in some government capacity? The far left and left media is rabid in their hatred of her, and this is a piece of the puzzle backing my concern we are throwing away critical parts (but not all) of our earned culture that has made us a great country.
Rdcanning: [i]” If inclusiveness is a positive American value (which is what I think you were saying) how can Americans not be inclusive and still be better than everybody else? It seems to follow from what you said that being inclusive is good – but being too inclusive is bad.”[/i]
Great question. American exceptionalism is many things. Cultural inclusiveness is certainly one; but only when it includes adequate assimilation. The reason that Europeans are rejecting multiculturalism is that their immigrants failed to assimilate and are threatening to corrupt their traditional European culture. The US has been much better at making immigrants feel welcome and getting them melded into the American experience. However, we have been flooded with too many immigrants for too long and we have overwhelmed our capacity… and the immigrants have set up base camp. The Hispanic turnout and dialog against props 187, 209 and 227 are examples of what I am talking about. If this population had sufficiently assimilated and melded, we would have had more people of Hispanic origins supporting these propositions. Check the demographic changes in store for the Southwest and West over the next decade or two. It is an invasion of too many foreign people with their hand out, and without the motivation and/or means to meld.
Medwoman: You will not change my mind on my belief that currently other cultures are inferior on the whole. The ones that come close are those that have modeled themselves after us (for example, adopted our form of representative democracy and free-market capitalism). These are also generally cultures of countries that benefit from the economic and military might of the US. This does not mean that I think ALL aspects of other cultures are inferior to the US. I know Bo Barret – the main character in the movie “Bottle Shock”. His story about being the first American producer to win the national wine competition with France is another example of American exceptionalism… but it certainly does not mean that all French wines are inferior. You mention medicine and “high tech”, but then seem to discount their importance in the global practice of medicine. The Premier of Nova Scotia didn’t choose to have his heart surgery in an American hospital because his Canadian healthcare was superior. How many life-saving drugs and medical devices have been invented and produced by American companies compared to the rest of the world? You mention US infant mortality… how much of that belongs to poor immigrants? Or, how much of that belongs to other disadvantaged natives that lack prenatal services because we spend so much on the poor immigrants that we cannot afford it? The US is the third most populated country, and the third most densly populated country. At some point, don’t we have to shut off the inflow of so many “poor, tired and hungry”, and try to take care of the people we already have here?
Frankly, I think the problem here is that too many Americans have lost perspective for what the US has done for the rest of the world… and are feeling guilty that we cannot do more.
Wdf1: [i]” It’s important for everyone to feel proud of their heritage”[/i]
That sounds good, but why? What do you get out of that? Do you pass down stories and myths of your people to your children? Do you practice any customs or rituals to stay connected to the traditional values of your cultural heritage? Why has being proud of being African-American, Latino, Hmong, Muslim, Woman, Gay, Lesbian, liberal, etc… become more important, or more acceptable, than being proud of being American… or God forbid a white, Christian, conservative proud to be American… you know, those type of people that founded the country? Is the existance of these people why Obama went on his global apology tour last year? Certainly we should be humble and not boisterous about American superiority; but why do we have to feel guilty about it and keep apologizing that all friggin’ 6 billion people on the globe don’t have it as good as Bill Gates?
The issue, as I see it Jeff, is that all these definitions require somebody to do the deciding. Do you get to define what American culture is? Who knows best? Is it only white christian males? Who gets to tell what stories and who gets to decide if one person’s stories are American “enough” to qualify? If you aren’t related to the founding fathers (what about the founding mom’s?) can you still be American? What about people who came early on and married into Native American families (like John Smith) or African-American families (say Sally Hemmings)? Are they still American (enough)?
I’m proud of many things American, and not so proud of some things American. Being American ain’t just one line of thought or one way of doing things. Alexis de Touqueville knew that when he came to American in the 19th century. One of the things he noticed was that Americans (as he knew them) were good at reinventing themselves. As a country we have been doing this for a couple centuries. And I believe that the emergence of world cultures in our own country is a good thing too. And don’t forget that American culture (at least business culture) has dominated the world for the last fifty years and has been adopted by most other countries. And when people move to this country, it seems like they are (at least in part) affirming their belief in our way of doing things. And wonderfully, in my view, they bring their own sensibilities and values to our culture and the resulting mix is probably, in the long run, better for all.
I think the notion that one culture is “better” than others is dangerous and what has lead to exterminations like the Holocaust and other genocidal acts. The Spanish conquests, the Indian Wars – it goes on and on. In the extreme these sorts of ethnocentric views do more harm than good. Sorry Jeff, living by your rules – I believe – leads us down the wrong path.
rdcanning[i]”I think the notion that one culture is “better” than others is dangerous and what has lead to exterminations like the Holocaust and other genocidal acts.”[/i]
First, thanks for the thoughtful post. However, I don’t see how you can honestly or objectively take my points to this point. In fact, I am advocating just the opposite. I don’t support the forced domination of one culture over another. I also don’t support the extent of the immigrant invasion from our southern border for two reasons: one – we cannot afford it, and two – we have failed and will continue to fail to assimilate this many people. Much of the American Southwest speaks more Spanish than English.
It is wonderful that different cultures spice and flavor our American culture. My only problem is that there is too much spice and flavor going on, and not enough pot roast.
We are still a young country, but at some point don’t we get to define and cement our culture like all other countries (except maybe Canada) get to do?
Look at any large and successful company to understand how diversity and culture play. Without shared goals and common understanding and practices, the company will become inefficient and rife with conflict. We are such a fragmented and polarized country… splintering into all manner of group-think self interest. I think we need an awakening on how we need a common culture that we all value and share. Our country cannot be the free-spirit adolescent forever… at some point we need to grow up and accept who we are. I think that is a problem with the baby boomers… most of them fought having to grow up, and I think many are still fighting it to some degree. Their parents were never this confused about what it meant to be American.
How is that inclusion thing working for ya’ll?
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/americas-10-most-segregated-cities_n_845092.html#s261024&title=10_NassauSuffolk_New[/url]
Note the areas with the highest unemployment also have the highest population of Hispanics. I am not making this point to somehow denigrate Hispanics. The simple fact is that there are too many immigrants lacking employable education and skills.
[url]”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/us-cities-unemployment-highest-lowest_n_845960.html”[/url]
Jeff: As a social scientist I cringe when I see a bivariate analysis that does not look into other critical factors that may explain both variables.
[i]Note the areas with the highest unemployment also have the highest population of Hispanics. I am not making this point to somehow denigrate Hispanics.[/i]
That’s good, because you seem to have missed the point of my comments about the Appalachians.
David:
I cringe when I have to use the Huffington Post as a reference to a point!
I wish there were more in-depth analyses done on the true economic cost-benefit of our immigration policies and practices. Unfortunately we have to rely on data bits since the institutions that do this type of work are unwilling to so either because they don’t want to offend certain groups, or they are well served by the lack of critical studies.
There is one other point related to immigration from Mexico that gets little attention. The number of poor and criminal elements that make it to the US release the pressure on the Mexican government to fix their obscene corruption… a change that would then invite more business investment that would lead to more jobs for Mexican people in their own country.
I’m not joking that I think the best thing for both countries would be to put our military on the border and give Calderon one year to stop the flow and fix lawlessness and corruption or we invade them and take over the country to install a working law enforcement, judiciary and democracy. We could use their vast oil wealth to pay for the invasion. Or, alternatively, wall off the border and let the pressure build from within for a revolution toward Mexican self-sufficiency instead of relying on nanny America.
I’m not willing to draw any conclusions from the limited data we have. I suspect that the pattern that you see have more to do with the economic conditions of the places most conducive to the type of jobs that recent immigrants hold.
And I believe the best policy to stop most of the black market human exporters would be to legalize and streamline the process for people to come here legally on work visas, amnesty for existing residents, etc.
Don:
Things have been improving for that area since Burt Reynolds had to fight them off with his bow.
[url]http://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/TheAppalachianRegion.asp[/url]
[quote]The Region’s economy, once highly dependent on mining, forestry, agriculture, chemical industries, and heavy industry, has become more diversified in recent times, and now includes a variety of manufacturing and service industries. In 1965, one in three Appalachians lived in poverty. In 2008, the Region’s poverty rate was 18 percent. The number of Appalachian counties considered economically distressed was 223 in 1965; in fiscal year 2011 that number is 82.[/quote]
Maybe I am missing your point related to the Appalachian region. What is it?
Note that the povery rates in these dominate Hispanic areas of the Southwest are higher than 18%. Imperial County reports about 22% in poverty. Even L.A. County has about 16% in poverty.
Jeff B: [i]I think we need an awakening on how we need a common culture that we all value and share. Our country cannot be the free-spirit adolescent forever… at some point we need to grow up and accept who we are. I think that is a problem with the baby boomers… most of them fought having to grow up, and I think many are still fighting it to some degree. Their parents were never this confused about what it meant to be American.[/i]
We do have a common culture. I’m not worried at all about that. If you go live in a foreign country for a year you will definite know that there is a solid common culture in the U.S. You will find yourself meeting other Americans you wouldn’t normally bother to spend time with, but hanging out anyway, just because common cultural reference points you would share are comforting.
The “multi-culturalism” that scares you is about allowing minority cultures a chance have their heritage and history acknowledged. My parents went to school in the 30’s & 40’s and had the standard WASP narrative in school about the history of the U.S.
When I went to school, I learned most of that history, but also got doses of Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, WEB Dubois, Jackie Robinson, etc. It isn’t directly the heritage of my ancestors, but it has been educational for me to learn about it. Black kids get to see people like themselves doing worthwhile things in history, and in the process get to see that history does include them.
Why is Europe erupting in anti-multiculturalism? Nobody seems to want to take that question on.
The fact that European [i]conservatives[/i] agree with American [i]conservatives[/i] about the risks of multiculturalism doesn’t mean that Europe is erupting in anti-multiculturalism. At the extreme end of the political spectrum, there are anti-immigrants on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe the focus of the sentiment is against Muslims. Certainly there is lots of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country as well, especially on the right. Lots of people, in and out of government, disagree with the premise that immigrants are a detriment to our society.
JB
1) “”why would we not want a model American wife and mother to represent us in some governmental capacity ? “
I believe we have that in Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Olympia Snowe, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to name a few. I do not believe that we need someone who’s greatest ambition and skill is self promotion and who has demonstrated that she will abandoned a post when it no longer meets her self serving needs.
2). “immigrants failed to assimilate and are threatening to corrupt their traditional European culture” I simply do not believe in “corruption of a culture. This implies that one culture is objectively better that another. This is “tribalism”, which you seem to abhor when it suits you, at it’s worst. If assimilation is such a good thing, perhaps if the Caucasian settlers who came to the areas around San Francisco, Sacramento,
Vacaville and Santa Rosa had done a better job of assimilating, we would all be speaking Spanish now and the whole issue of immigration would never have arisen.
3) Many of the “foreign people that you mention have their hand out, not to “mooch” but to pick the fruit and vegetables for substandard wages so that you and I can have affordable fresh food.
4) “how much of that belongs to other disadvantaged natives that lack prenatal services because we spend so much on the poor immigrants that we cannot afford it ? I am sure that you are aware that what we spend on “the poor immigrants” is a pittance compared to the amount we spend on our defense budget. We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We could choose to reassess our priorities and would have plenty of money to take care of our needy. We simply choose not to.
5) I have no desire to try to change your mind about anything. my goal is quite simply to present a different point of view. I also was raised within the predominantly white conservative background that you seem to feel is the “traditional American culture” to which all others should meld. The problem is that even though we seem to have been raised similarly we have reached different conclusions. You hold an ethnocentric view of the world that “your culture” is at the apex of human civilization and that other cultures are corrupting yours, while I value diversity over uniformity and see that as the true strength of American culture.So please explain to me objectively what makes your view superior to mine.
Jeff, the attitude(s) that our culture is “better” than others is simply discriminatory and systematically biased. By definition. The notion that we are better than others based on cultural origin leads one to discriminate against them and in the long run separates us from them in systematic ways. The rationalization and weak analogy to spicing the food simply cannot hide the fact that you would discriminate against individuals and groups based on their country of origin. You would choose to exclude them from many of the same privileges that white, Christian men get (my hunch is that you have a more conservative view of women’s roles than I do) based on their ethnicity.
This is what segregation was all about. It systematically excluded a group of people based on skin color and country of origin. Your comments about too many immigrants and the watering down of American culture and your support of denying benefits to those with Hispanic origins is as noxious to me as what white southerners did to Black people for decades.
This notion that we spoil the true American culture by allowing too many immigrants into the country leads, I believe, to repressive and discriminatory policies and laws such as the one in Arizona allowing peace officers to detain individuals if they appear to be immigrants. It’s the same discriminatory attitudes that almost lead California to pass the initiatives you mentioned earlier (187, 209, 287).
I think you are taking the short view of history. This country has had many waves of immigration and each time there were traditionalists who deplored the new groups and believed they would overwhelm traditional culture. But it has never seemed to turn out that way – “traditional” culture shifted and became something new – new traditional culture. Like I said earlier, we’ve been a country re-inventing ourselves for 250 years. I’m very hopeful that we will retain the flexibility, humane nature and forward thinking attitudes that have allowed us to weather the all these changes over time. We’ll be a different country when my kids are grown, just as it is a different country from when I was a kid in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and for my dad before me. I actually don’t think we are headed in the wrong direction. To me it’s not a matter of right and wrong – it’s a different direction.
For a new take on multi-cultural perspective, I see in the Enterprise that KDVS Radio Station is now carrying Al-Jazeera English newscast.
Wouldn’t it be exciting if Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes would put together a Fox News Arabic service? I would love to see what they’d come up with for their opinion shows. I’d be interested to see how Glenn Beck would translate.
JB
“why is Europe erupting in anti – multiculturalism ?”
Ok, I’ll take the question head on.
Fear and greed. Fear of that defined as different and unwillingness to share wealth and resources.
As a group, conservatives tend to favor “sameness” over change. Conservative politicians tend to promote fear of change. A significant number of people, once they become fearful, will seek comfort in sameness. Which would be fine except that it tends to lead to exclusion and discrimination as pointed out by rdcanning.
The very goal that you state for our nation ” to define and cement” is undesirable to me. I do not see this as “growing up” but rather as discriminating and stagnating. I am with rdcanning in his hope that we will continue to adapt to inevitably changing circumstances as a humane and caring society that will refuse to codify any one set of cultural beliefs as superior to others.
rdcanning: [i]”Jeff, the attitude(s) that our culture is “better” than others is simply discriminatory and systematically biased.”[/i]
We are beating this subject to death, but I think it is a very important topic. I really appreciate the thoughtful back and forth. Some of this is going to have to be “agree to disagree”.
I think our culture is better than any other within our own borders. This opinion is not discriminatory, but it is certainly biased. Call it national pride. I frankly don’t care how someone from another country feels about their culture. I assume that most of them feel the same sense of cultural superiority and national pride. If not, then either there is something wrong with them or something wrong with their country. But when they move to my country, I expect them to give it up and start acting American.
March with a flag of another country and you have established yourself as an invader of my country. Support people marching with another flag, and you have established yourself as a traitor of my country.
I also don’t apologize for being lucky to be born American. As a country we do more for the rest of the world than any other. However, I know it will never be enough. When you are on the top of the hill, it does not matter what you do… envy will always trump demonstrated compassion… and people will be motivated to knock you down so they can feel better about themselves by comparison.
I think people with left-leaning political tendencies feel uneasy and somewhat guilty about America’s success and would not mind seeing us fall from the top of the hill; or more accurately, they prefer all indications of national, cultural, individual superiority go away … while somehow retaining all the social and economic benefits derived from them. That is the essence of the theories of relativism and collectivism… ideas that have previously failed miserably.
The template of the left and left-media is that the Tea Party is comprised of a bunch of angry violent racist whites. Other than the fact that the people making these claims sprang from the Bill Ayers party of political militancy, and that there has been zero factual evidence of violence from Tea Party members, the “racism” claims being so carelessly tossed about are an indication that we are experiencing a cultural war in our country. So is most of Europe. It is not just conservatives in Europe that are rejecting multiculturalism. European liberals too are acknowledging that they screwed up.
You simply cannot have an “anything goes” society and expect it to stay strong. You might see cultural progress springing all around you, but I see increasing evidence of moral turpitude and social decline. I see these as being resultant of too much multiculturalism. I travel to the places where these angry white racist Tea Partiers tend to live, and there is a greater sense of community… neighbors that truly care for one another and help each other… strong families with strong moral values… people that find a lost wallet or purse and return it to the owner intact… people that open the door for each other, and give up the seat on the bus and the parking space. These people are not racist in my experience (at least no more than the general population), but they are certainly biased and judgmental about demonstrated character and behavior. Then I travel to the great salad bowl of Southern CA, and (although it is certainly more vibrant and exciting) and I see few examples of shared goals and a strong binding moral compass. Neighbors do not socialize… they do not help each other (they more often feud with each other and take from each other)… their kids run amuck… security bars are on the windows to prevent property theft. I do value the cultural diversity, but I also recognize it as cultural chaos and I think it comes at a great and increasing cost.
medwoman: most conservatives I know are not so much afraid of change, but they are determined to try to prevent the destruction of this great country from within. Your comment [i]”Fear of that defined as different and unwillingness to share wealth and resources.”[/i] is an indication that you believe in collectivism and maybe Marxism. Conservatives really hate these things. You should too based on the factual history of copious human misery and suffering caused by them.
JB
1) I was born in this country in 1952. I march under no one else’s flag and am certainly no Marxist. I think it far easier to resort to labels and finger pointing than to consider the nuances of anothers’ point of view. I find it somewhat off putting to be labeled by someone who is no more ” American” than I am.
2) I have lived in multiple areas of the country including Washington state, New Mexico, Arizona, both northern and southern California and so can assert that no one ethnic, racial or religious group has a lock on family or community values. Some of the strongest family bonds I see are in my Hispanic patients. On the purely personal, anecdotal level, I was once saved from being pulled into a truck by a couple of young white thugs while walking home from work by a young,and by his dress and speech, probably not very affluent Hispanic male, who claimed I was with him, stood them off and then saw me safely home. My point ? No single group holds a monopoly on morals, values, or a superior culture.
And yes, this is a matter of agreeing to disagree. isn’t that one of the foundations of our country ?
medwoman: You are right in the middle of that baby boom generation. I was born in 1960… so I am a “back end” baby boomer (I’m sure there are a few people that agree with the “back end” label in any case ;-). I read somewhere that back-end baby boomers had to fight for the stubble after the larger herd stampeded through. I think there is some truth to that based on my experience. It might explain some of our different worldview/opinions.
I wasn’t trying to use the term Marxist as a derogatory label. It just seemed to me from your comments that you agree with the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” worldview that Marx espoused. Nuanced or not, I think it is wrong and there is plenty of historical evidence that it does not work. However, there are plenty of people that believe these principles and will not give up… it is the essence of what all many of our social programs are based on. I am not against every principle of Marxism; just believing that we need much better balance. However, on the whole, the principles of collectivism (“any philosophy or system that puts any kind of group [such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.] before the individual”) don’t work well on their own. They train a population to be dependent and lazy.
Note too that I am not advocating we become isolationists and root out all other cultures from something too narrowly defined as American culture. However, as a nation we have become obsessed with inclusion, sensitivity, diversity, tolerance, etc., but in a too narrow band of thinking that it only applies to certain groups deserving of some victim status… and in the process we are causing more divisions, conflicts, racism, classism, groupism, etc. Now people that believe they are mainstream Americans are being made to feel: marginalized, rejected and ignored… and in many cases strangers in their own land. This cannot turn out well… just like it is not turning out well in Europe.
By pushing this idea that so many people flooding us from dramatically different cultures can peacefully coexist with traditional American values notwithstanding that they do not assimilate and they order themselves very differently within society; clinging to different language, behaviors and worldviews, liberals are pushing us to a cultural war and will only serve to divide us more.
What are “traditional American values”?:
[url]http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/pages/faculty/alee/extra/American_values.html[/url]
JB
Why would we have a cultural war if no one group insisted that their way was the “right” way ?
I do not believe that it is liberals driving us to a cultural war, if you believe one is coming, which I do not, but rather those who would choose to impose their beliefs on others.
medwoman: Exactly. Why are US liberals always pushing for so much change to our culture? Why are Europeans now rejecting the changes that liberals pushed on their cultures? It is obviously that liberals do not think our traditional Western cultures are inclusive or tolerant enough, right? It is also obvious that this will lead to more cultural conflict as we see happening all throughout Europe.
JB
Kohl’s article very interesting , thanks for posting.
And partially explanatory of our debate. According to these criteria, I was in error. It would appear that I am not as “American” as you are by these standards ; )
I believe in the interaction between the environment and the individual rather than a human dominance model, I value collaboration over competition, I value the present at least as much as the future, and tend to see humans as social animals as well as individuals.
I believe that freedom from ( hunger, cold, lack of shelter and illness) is a prerequisite for and as important as the freedom to ( excel, compete, peruse ones abilities and dreams.)
And I believe that even though we may fall at different places on a relative scale of “Americanness ” the dreams and visions of all of us who are acting in good faith must be considered and respected, not just those who happen to align more closely with our personal version of the
“American dream.”
[i]”I believe that freedom from ( hunger, cold, lack of shelter and illness) is a prerequisite for and as important as the freedom to ( excel, compete, peruse ones abilities and dreams.) “[/i]
Good. Maslow’s Hierarchy stuff. I think you and I agree 100% of what the basic needs are (well maybe 90%). Our main differences seem to be our sensibilities for how we go about helping people to fulfill them. Frankly, I think there are not many reasons why so many people in our modern society (of almost endless opportunity to pursue their dreams) continue to be working on their lower order needs. What a waste of a precious life.
The struggle to survive is a motivating force that comes before the struggle to achieve. However, survival is also a step achievement… unless it is handed to you. You cannot really skip step on the hierarchy. If you are someone reliant on handouts, are you really secure from hunger, cold and lack of shelter?
I think all animals can be corrupted to live for handouts. It is natural to seek the easiest path to survival. But unless you are a creationist (somehow I doubt you are), you would believe in Darwin’s theories of Natural Selection. You would also know history as being rife with examples of extreme challenges for human struggle. And, finally you would worry that too much help is corrosive and damaging to the species because the members lose the ability to cope with struggle.
Despite so much hand wringing over social stresses, we seem to be built for struggle. If you take it away, you take away much of our human purpose. What a terrible thing it must be to be an adult and not have a purpose other than waiting for someone else to take care of you. When we are children, when we are too sick, when we are too old, if we have disabilities we have no way to overcome, then others should help. Other than that, we should be providing the smallest of temporary help, along with a kick in the pants.
I think life is precious; but secondary to living. We need long-term big picture solutions to improve the quality of living for a greater percentage of people, not handouts that keep them dependent and keep them from growing into people seeking and achieving their progressives dreams. We need to grow more producers, not welcome more moochers.
More legislated morality from the left:
[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-rights-textbooks-20110402,0,1951209.story[/url]