Illegal Immigration: Don't believe the hype

[SpyridonOCA]

Right-wing extremists protested this version of the national anthem, forgetting that the American cultural melting pot should be accepting to all cultures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gP_pSOCz4

Immigration reform would help warm Mexicans to US 'melting pot'
By Jorge Castañeda
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0409/p09s01-coop.html


Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation

FRANCINE J. LIPMAN
Chapman University - School of Law; Chapman University - School of Business & Economics

Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584


"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" applies to brown-skinned people too... except during an election year.

[machismo]

Tell that to the 100's of hsopitals in Cali that have closed thanks to illegals...

[SpyridonOCA]

Tell that to the 100's of hsopitals in Cali that have closed thanks to illegals...

Is that enough to mean that immigrants hurt the economy more than they help?

[machismo]

What do they help? When they steal peoples ID? Go to an ER with a headache, and then don't pay? Do jobs that people who are on welfare should be doing to earn their checks that the taxpayers, pay for? Have children that hold back the rest of the class? take scholarships from American citizens and legal alien residents, while at the same time getting charged in-state tuition, while US citizens have to pay out of state costs to go to college in a neighboring state?

Spyridon, I wouldn't expect this liberalism from you? Have you switched to McKennedy..I mean McCain?

[SpyridonOCA]

I'm not a liberal. I support the immigration reform policy of the Bush administration.

[Dorothea]

The Bush administration's policy on illegal immigration is lousy. This is one of the stances I do not agree with Bush on. Enforce the laws, build the fence, penalize the companies hiring the illegals. If the illegals want to work and live here, go through the process just as my mom did, and millions of others before them.

[SpyridonOCA]

The Bush administration's policy on illegal immigration is lousy. This is one of the stances I do not agree with Bush on. Enforce the laws, build the fence, penalize the companies hiring the illegals. If the illegals want to work and live here, go through the process just as my mom did, and millions of others before them.

NAFTA's unfair policies have cost Mexico thousands of jobs, so no wonder they are coming over the border to get some work. If they are willing to do work that others are not, and if their presence creates a net gain for our economy, then let them stay. That's what capitalism is all about.

[Dorothea]

NAFTA's unfair policies have cost Mexico thousands of jobs, so no wonder they are coming over the border to get some work. If they are willing to do work that others are not, and if their presence creates a net gain for our economy, then let them stay. That's what capitalism is all about.
Sure...after they become citizens, not before.

[Thekla]

NAFTA's unfair policies have cost Mexico thousands of jobs, so no wonder they are coming over the border to get some work. If they are willing to do work that others are not, and if their presence creates a net gain for our economy, then let them stay. That's what capitalism is all about.
not to mention the multinational corporations in Mexico who pay 'poverty wages' and optimize their profits by selling "north of the border"; perhaps if the pay scale were more honorable in Mexico, illegal immigration would be somewhat reduced ...

[SpyridonOCA]

Sure...after they become citizens, not before.

Then give them a path to citizenship, rather than incarcerating and jailing them all. Which option sounds more realistic?

[SpyridonOCA]

The most important question to ask in the immigration debate is this: What would Jesus do? "What you've done for the least of these, you have done for me."

[Orthosdoxa]

Oooh, Spyridon pulled out the big gun, the WWJD. Wow, well, the debate's over for me.

One out of three people in federal prison in the US for a violent crime is an illegal alien. But naw, we shouldn't ask foreign nationals to do everything with, you know, that evil paperwork and a waiting period for a background check and such. They should just be allowed in with no system of accountability at all, allowed to live off the grid (and often off the government), and hold the finger up to our government, who simply wants the opportunity to examine someone who wants to come into our country, especially in a time of war. But you're right, Jesus would never want that. You know how He hates paperwork!

[SpyridonOCA]

Oooh, Spyridon pulled out the big gun, the WWJD. Wow, well, the debate's over for me.


Please forgive me for wanting a Bible-based government. :cool:

[Orthosdoxa]

Please forgive me for wanting a Bible-based government. :cool:


Ah, now Spyridon is enveloped in the sheer warmth of overwhelming smugness, thinking he has the moral high ground. To be 21 and know everything again! I miss the days!

I know I don't know everything, or even anything. But if you want to use the Bible to say certain people should be exempt from simple laws like background checks and waiting periods, be my guest.

[SpyridonOCA]

I know I don't know everything, or even anything. But if you want to use the Bible to say certain people should be exempt from simple laws like background checks and waiting periods, be my guest.

There could be immigration reform with those elements included.

[Dorothea]

Then give them a path to citizenship, rather than incarcerating and jailing them all. Which option sounds more realistic?
Jailing them? They wouldn't be jailed if they weren't sneaking their way into the country and hiding out from the immigration officials, but instead, they could actually try coming to the country in a legal way, and go to the appropriate authorities to get them started in the process of becoming a US citizen. Breaking the law isn't the way to go.

[Dorothea]

The most important question to ask in the immigration debate is this: What would Jesus do? "What you've done for the least of these, you have done for me."
Yeah, breaking the laws aren't exactly Christ-like either.

[SpyridonOCA]

Yeah, breaking the laws aren't exactly Christ-like either.

Acts 5:29
But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."

[rusmeister]

Spyridon, just to test the rightness of your ideas, why don't you take some of them, especially the ones on tsardom, etc and share, unedited, a thread or two with your priest, and ask him what spiritual attitude you should be holding?

If he says to go right on doing and saying what you have been, I'd be satisfied that you've done your best to self-check.

Whatever he says, you should take very seriously and obey.

[Lukaris]

One thing to remember in proclaiming generosity to others at the expense of another. When tax paying citizens' cannot provide health care for themselves or their children by the millions & non citizens are consuming the already limited resources a problem exists. St Paul wrote to Timothy, "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Timothy 5:8). Also remember, with extreme caution, about casting pearls before swine (See Matthew 7:6).

[kamikat]

Exodus 22:21
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

[Lukaris]

"When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God." (Leviticus 23:22). This is the crux of Old Testament covenant to the stranger who is neither to be vexed or oppressed who would also work to gather what was spared for them. "I will be a swift witness against sorcerers, against adulterers, against perjurers, against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans, against those who turn away an alien..." (Malachi 3:5). Ponder these arguments against refugees, legal poor immigrants, taxpaying citizens lacking health coverage for their families etc. It is a real conundrum and to say "what would Jesus do?" from those of us who are not HIM is risky at best. Robbing Peter to save Paul is a formula for disaster.

[MrJim]

An outsider's POV...

The illegal immigration issue has some unforseen consequences I'm witnessing on a daily basis. Here in southcentral PA we have an enormous immigrant population because of the orchards, farming, and industry. The hispanics are now the second largest community after caucasian in our county.

Here is a cut/paste on a post I just finished a few minutes ago at the Conservative forum (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=42230997#post42230997):

Immigration~a topic close to my heart I'll admit. I love mexicans~I admit it. I've worked with them for almost 20 years. The guys are hard workers and the women are uber lovely. One fellow I've worked with for over 15 years recently became a US citizen. Yet one of my failings is that I would like to see them all deported and brought back in legally~yeah, like I said, it's a failing of mine. I should be detached enough from the worldly nation's business but as an observer it appears that a mass amnesty or a complete open border would lead to some serious internal unrest that would lead to a lot of violence. Things done in a more orderly and lawful way would work things out better in the long run.

The Right has its issues, but the Left is no alternative. They have demonstrated that they would put forth efforts that would redistribute wealth through heavy taxes and allow amnesty/open borders. They also believe in more license in wanting to openly endorse what God obviously opposes~ abortions and homosexuality. The question that arises is "what's next" in allowing what God hates-pedophilia, bestiality? Sounds crazy, but talk of allowing legal abortions and married homosexuals sounded crazy 100 years ago.

These continued efforts by the left to rub these kinds of issues into the Right's noses are the very kinds of things that lead to violence and revolt. As an observer to history I can see a path to another Civil War being sewn by the actions of the political left. Having been a WN [White Nationalist/Neo-Nazi] a few decades ago I still keep my ear close to the ground in that community. There's always been rumblings and cycles. What really bothers me is that I'm hearing their kind of talk among regular people-coworkers, some guy in line at the store, a lady at the bank...rumblings that before I only heard in the underground of america. People think that the US is too civilized for such a thing but that is just whistling in the dark. I fear there are unintended consequences to the agendas of both parties, yet the greater ones are with the left.

again, just another POV~it's noble to want a "bible-based government", but that is the language my fundamentalist friends use also...and then it gets back to who is doing the interpreting ;)

[Thekla]

I think if we could have restrained ourselves from some serious "mucking about" in the internal affairs of the countries south of our border for the past ... ?100 years ? ... (and always in our own interest, not theirs), the illegal immigration issue would be less of one :(

[Dorothea]

Acts 5:29
But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."
I have a hard time mixing in politics and religion, except on social issues. They are kind of separate issues for me.

I do have to say that I believe that Christ would want us to follow laws that good for man. People coming in illegally cause problems for those that are here legally in some instances, such as having their babies with no cost at the nearest hospital, while other US citizens struggle to pay their medical bills and their labor and delivery, and end up paying for these illegal's deliveries more than their own. I don't think that's nice, do you?

Crimes that have been on the rise from illegals. I don't know what's going on there, but it seems they've gone up a lot the past 5 or so years.

I just believe in following the law and order. I'm the daughter of a judge. This comes naturally for me.

[AxionEsti]

Yes, the Mexican people are hard workers, and the women are lovely, and most are very family-oriented. I agree that I'd rather hire a Mexican worker because they are diligent, and want to please. However, I still believe they should enter the country legally. If you say that is impossible, you are wrong. It is very possible, but it just takes time. I would like to see this happen more quickly, but our government is slow.

My grandparents entered this country legally, and passed health tests, and did all that was required to enter and become citizens. My grandmother could not speak English when she arrived here. She learned to speak English. My father and uncle and aunt did not have special teachers to teach them English, but had to learn on their own. While I don't begrudge some help for the students to learn English in school, I do believe that some schools go too far and teach them in Spanish only without the benefit of helping them learn English in certain parts of California. I hope this changes.

Right now, everything has to be in Spanish first, and then us English speakers get help after that. The phone, the written instructions, and even the ballots. English speakers have become second-class citizens. We just had some very angry letters to the editor because people cannot find jobs without knowing how to speak Spanish! It's discrimination. Why don't the Spanish speakers learn English? Oh, it's too hard? Give me a break. :(

[Dorothea]

Yes, the Mexican people are hard workers, and the women are lovely, and most are very family-oriented. I agree that I'd rather hire a Mexican worker because they are diligent, and want to please. However, I still believe they should enter the country legally. If you say that is impossible, you are wrong. It is very possible, but it just takes time. I would like to see this happen more quickly, but our government is slow.

My grandparents entered this country legally, and passed health tests, and did all that was required to enter and become citizens. My grandmother could not speak English when she arrived here. She learned to speak English. My father and uncle and aunt did not have special teachers to teach them English, but had to learn on their own. While I don't begrudge some help for the students to learn English in school, I do believe that some schools go too far and teach them in Spanish only without the benefit of helping them learn English in certain parts of California. I hope this changes.

Right now, everything has to be in Spanish first, and then us English speakers get help after that. The phone, the written instructions, and even the ballots. English speakers have become second-class citizens. We just had some very angry letters to the editor because people cannot find jobs without knowing how to speak Spanish! It's discrimination. Why don't the Spanish speakers learn English? Oh, it's too hard? Give me a break. :(
Totally on the same page as you, Axion. My mom came over legally from Greece. She even had to have a background check from the Air Force's Office of Investigations. She went through the whole process as did millions. I agree that the government should find a more efficient and quicker way. Just not sure what that would be.

I also am aggravated by the domination of Spanish-speaking areas and calling businesses and having to press "1" for English. We're in the US not Mexico. Now, I don't mean this to offend, but come on. I don't believe in preferential treatment. If they're going to go that route, then they'd have to be accommodating to all the other languages out there, such as Italian, German, Japanese, etc. Just as if I were to visit and live in Germany, I'd expect to try to speak German while in public and doing business, etc. This is America, speak English when you call the banks or whatever business (I said banks because I worked at one, and there would be a few who would call and refuse to speak English, so one of the gals there who is from Puerto Rico, would have to take those calls, and it always irritated her. She'd roll her eyes and ask, "Why don't these people speak English? We're in the United States of America." Some who come over refuse to learn and speak English, therefore, not assimilating well into the communities and society, which is what makes this country great in the first place.

[Thekla]

Our annexation of PR introduced Spanish as an "official language" in a way (and our win near the border of Mexico). It would seem at least unkind to require folks in areas we "took/won" to adjust their language and culture to the victor's. (I also stand against the British attempt to wipe out Irish, and the Turkish attempt to wipe out Greek literacy).

Until the 1st WW, many regions of Pa had German speaking schools; nor did it seems to bother anyone until the war. The change was "political". (The Amish still primarily use German).

One of our recent family 'ancestors' was an illegal who, after he became legal through adoption (at 17?) was well regarded in public service (including busting a communist spy ring). I'm not in a position to cast stones ^_^.

But I do think the language issue -- in the light of history -- is somewhat muddy. And again, our meddling in the internal affairs south of our border exacerbates the problem of immigration. We have reaped economic benefits from this meddling, at a cost to the citizens of those countries. If our "nose was clean" on this matter, the issue would be a bit more black and white for me.

Perhaps we can ask where the products we buy are manufactured. If they are made in Mexico or "more south" , we can ask the company if the workers are paid a (real) living wage. To pay fairly could lift entire regions out of poverty, and by extension perhaps stem the flow of emigration.

[Dorothea]

It seems everything is made in China these days, Thekla. http://209.85.12.227/11921/19/emo/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Thekla]

It seems everything is made in China these days, Thekla. http://209.85.12.227/11921/19/emo/icon_rolleyes.gif
a lot is, thats true !

But the Maquilladoras in Mexico are about (IIRC) 5000 strong. These workers assemble (or assemble parts of) US TVs, cars, clothes and sunglasses (from Ray-ban to dime store quality) etc. The sudden boom has caused untrammeled growth and, due to inadequate infrastructure and economic factors, many families live in squalid unsanitary shanty towns (small 'homes' built of scrap). Further, much of the pollution (lax environmental law) spills back over the US border.

Following the US interventions further south, US businesses hold the upper hand in many regions. Many native populations have been permanently displaced and impoverished.

According to the Mennonite Central Committee, much of the destruction (including death) following recent hurricanes, came from the clear-cut method used by factory farms (deforestation results in mudslides). Further, pesticides used by these corporate farms (many serve US markets) have been found to have resulted in deterioration of general health and IQ in the children living in downhill villages that receive the run-off.

[rusmeister]

My two cents as an immigrant in a foreign land -

Those who, in their own country, object to the imposition of foreign languages in public life, are quite right to do so. The great objection to immigration today is that the immigrants come and no longer feel that they need to learn English and become Americans (or that one can 'be American' without knowing the language, history or culture of the country they have moved to).

Having moved to Russia, I can say that it would be absurd and wrong of me to expect a 'right' to speak English or wave my American flag (yes, I have one) in a public setting or to expect service from the local INS in English.

Not that it is exclusively the fault of immigrants. They are encouraged to think this way by much of the now-public thinking (achieved through our education system) that we call 'leftist'. Demands that we speak of 'a salad bowl' rather than 'a melting pot' - basically, that immigrants should come and not integrate - that they should all have a right to try to change the existing culture to their own, calls for driver's licenses (the standard ID of US citizens) for illegal immigrants, etc etc encourage immigrants to come with the attitude they now come with.

One thing - on the right and the left - both are wrong and have elements antithetical to our faith - so identifying oneself as 'conservative' or 'liberal' - charged labels with lots of baggage - is really not what we want to be doing as Christians.

As to our meddling elsewhere - agree, but the main problem is globalization. NAFTA was an earlier phase in the process of eliminating national boundaries for businesses, enabling them to syphon $ out of everywhere without limitation, thus contributing to the poverty Thekla describes. And the gap between the haves and have-nots continues to grow... (This, by the way, is an evil more promoted by 'conservatives' - the freedom of business from government interference - a legitimate use of a right granted turned to illegitimate use.)

[nutroll]

When I went to visit Italy and Greece, I didn't need to know a word of Italian or Greek. On my layover in Switzerland, again I was fine speaking only English. One can travel throughout much of the world without ever needing to learn a language other than English, and so many of us do. But the reason why this is so is that other countries are very much invested in teaching their children to speak more than just one language. They realize that even from a purely selfish perspective, knowing another language will be beneficial in many areas of life. And yet very few Americans learn a second language well enough to use it.

The illegal immigrants coming to this country often don't bother to learn English because they are not intending to mingle with English speaking people much. When you think about it, it makes sense. Why would you want to jeopardize your staying in this country by spending a lot of time around a lot of people, one of whom might decide to report you and get you sent home? And so you keep to your own people, none of whom speak English, and so you never really learn. The best chance that these people have to learn English is through their children taking English in School.

I personally think that it would be wonderful to have bilingual education, not to cater to the children of illegal immigrants, but to teach our children a second language at the same time they are teaching them English. Children are so much more capable of learning language than most adults, and we ought to be doing our best to teach them at least one other language. From a practical standpoint, it would make sense to teach them Spanish since that looks to be a useful thing nowadays. I don't think it matters too much what language, but whatever language we think might be most useful for someone to know (Chinese, perhaps?) I don't see it as catering to illegals, but rather as giving our kids an opportunity that kids in most other countries have, which is the opportunity to communicate with people of other cultures.

[Dorothea]

When I went to visit Italy and Greece, I didn't need to know a word of Italian or Greek. On my layover in Switzerland, again I was fine speaking only English. One can travel throughout much of the world without ever needing to learn a language other than English, and so many of us do. But the reason why this is so is that other countries are very much invested in teaching their children to speak more than just one language. They realize that even from a purely selfish perspective, knowing another language will be beneficial in many areas of life. And yet very few Americans learn a second language well enough to use it.

The illegal immigrants coming to this country often don't bother to learn English because they are not intending to mingle with English speaking people much. When you think about it, it makes sense. Why would you want to jeopardize your staying in this country by spending a lot of time around a lot of people, one of whom might decide to report you and get you sent home? And so you keep to your own people, none of whom speak English, and so you never really learn. The best chance that these people have to learn English is through their children taking English in School.

I personally think that it would be wonderful to have bilingual education, not to cater to the children of illegal immigrants, but to teach our children a second language at the same time they are teaching them English. Children are so much more capable of learning language than most adults, and we ought to be doing our best to teach them at least one other language. From a practical standpoint, it would make sense to teach them Spanish since that looks to be a useful thing nowadays. I don't think it matters too much what language, but whatever language we think might be most useful for someone to know (Chinese, perhaps?) I don't see it as catering to illegals, but rather as giving our kids an opportunity that kids in most other countries have, which is the opportunity to communicate with people of other cultures.
I am all for learning different languages. I frankly think the U.S. is behind on that issue. Children in our schools should be learning different languages. The school my kids are in is private, and they teach Spanish and Latin (later on...grade school for Latin). In the public schools, you have choice but to learn Spanish. I felt that was completely unfair and giving preferential treatment to those who refuse to speak English that are spanish-speaking people. I think at least two languages as options, but if that isn't possible, then the one language should be an elective. No school should force one particular language other than its indigenous one to the children. That's extremely wrong, imo.

If immigrants are coming over to work and become citizens, they should and need to speak English to communicate in the workplace and out in public. What they do in their own homes is their business. This is what has made America strong is the assimilation of people from all over the world of all different languages. They can keep their beliefs, their cultures, and their languages, but they learned English so that everyone in this country could communicate well, and it helps the communities and workplaces when you have the same language spoken, it bonds people together. If we decide to make this country, everybody for themselves and speak their own languages, I believe our country would be torn apart, and there would be all kinds of sections in the US of groups of people huddled speaking their own languages and there wouldn't be much socializing, communicating, and fellowship. Just my take, and it concerns me.

[rusmeister]

Agree with Dorothea. Esp. about the preference given to Spanish (which is an extremely unimportant language in the eastern hemisphere).

As a former public school teacher I'll say that the preference given to Spanish also undercuts all other immigrants trying to make it in the US - there are plenty of other Asian and African (but not nearly so many European) immigrants who do not speak Spanish.

But the most important thing, which some people have missed (but Dorothea mentioned and maybe I didn't stress enough) is the ridiculousness of expecting people who own a land and are good enough to let others come and live there to learn other languages and cultures. If we were to talk about rights, the very first right ought to be the right to be monolingual on the land of your own people. I say this as a multilingual person, and again (just to rub it in) as an immigrant myself. The most arrogant thing I could say to a Russian here would be "Learn English!" to someone who doesn't want to. The right to NOT have to learn a foreign language for your own home. It's fine and well to talk about learning about other cultures and I agree that the average American knows less about the rest of the world than any other nationality, but if he is at home (and not trying to meddle in foreign affairs) then he shouldn't have to. I will add, purely as an aside, that armchair generals who DO advocate meddling in the rest of the world SHOULD be required to completely learn a foreign language, but that is another kettle of fish.

[Thekla]

Agree with Dorothea. Esp. about the preference given to Spanish (which is an extremely unimportant language in the eastern hemisphere).

As a former public school teacher I'll say that the preference given to Spanish also undercuts all other immigrants trying to make it in the US - there are plenty of other Asian and African (but not nearly so many European) immigrants who do not speak Spanish.

But the most important thing, which some people have missed (but Dorothea mentioned and maybe I didn't stress enough) is the ridiculousness of expecting people who own a land and are good enough to let others come and live there to learn other languages and cultures. If we were to talk about rights, the very first right ought to be the right to be monolingual on the land of your own people. I say this as a multilingual person, and again (just to rub it in) as an immigrant myself. The most arrogant thing I could say to a Russian here would be "Learn English!" to someone who doesn't want to. The right to NOT have to learn a foreign language for your own home. It's fine and well to talk about learning about other cultures and I agree that the average American knows less about the rest of the world than any other nationality, but if he is at home (and not trying to meddle in foreign affairs) then he shouldn't have to. I will add, purely as an aside, that armchair generals who DO advocate meddling in the rest of the world SHOULD be required to completely learn a foreign language, but that is another kettle of fish.

I don't mean to be glib (if this sounds so...) but the US is a 'special case'. There were - as mentioned- until the early 20th century, public schools where German was the primary language. Further, our annexation of Puerto Rico muddies the issue (as does our acquiring other Spanish speaking areas:Florida, Texas, parts of California, etc.). Once we took PR-for example-, we "introduced" Spanish as a US language (where Spanish is still the primary language). The other option would be, like the British in Ireland, to 'outlaw' the existing language of a conquered land. Why don't we all, in the NE, speak Haudenosaunee ;). (after all, if you come to a place to live then you must learn the language-- from Colonial times on, the US has a lousy track record ...)

PS. sorry if I upset anyone :( I know this issue can be unsettling. Instead, I don't see a consistency with historical precedents for this one ...

[Dorothea]

Thekla, how is Florida a Spanish-speaking state, other than the area in Southern Florida (Miami mainly) where the Cuban-Americans are (who came over to escape from Cuba)?

I do believe in our history, all immigrants that came over to America, had to learn English and weren't given special privileges. Wouldn't you agree? This idea I've heard of the large influx of Spanish-speaking people, and we need to accommodate them. Did our government (state and federal) do this when the huge influx of Italians and Germans came to our country?

As far as languages taught in our schools, I can only answer with my experiences and my children's. I had a whole lot of choices in high school. We had German, French, Spanish, Russian, Latin, and I think Japanese.

[Thekla]

Thekla, how is Florida a Spanish-speaking state, other than the area in Southern Florida (Miami mainly) where the Cuban-Americans are (who came over to escape from Cuba)?

I do believe in our history, all immigrants that came over to America, had to learn English and weren't given special privileges. Wouldn't you agree? This idea I've heard of the large influx of Spanish-speaking people, and we need to accommodate them. Did our government (state and federal) do this when the huge influx of Italians and Germans came to our country?

As far as languages taught in our schools, I can only answer with my experiences and my children's. I had a whole lot of choices in high school. We had German, French, Spanish, Russian, Latin, and I think Japanese.
Much of Florida was Spanish speaking before we acquired it, as was/is much of Texas, California and Puerto Rico. With the annexation of Puerto Rico, we could either force the residents to learn a new language (as the Brits tried to do in Ireland) or permit Spanish to be used as the primary language (which it still is). Citizens of PR are US citizens. Likewise, German was the primary language in some public schools until WWI, and Europeans coming here did not customarily use the native languages (native American, Spanish in portions of Florida, Texas, etc) as their "official language". These examples are what I mean when I refer to the "muddiness" of historical precedent.

[Llauralin]

I don't mean to be glib (if this sounds so...) but the US is a 'special case'. There were - as mentioned- until the early 20th century, public schools where German was the primary language. Further, our annexation of Puerto Rico muddies the issue (as does our acquiring other Spanish speaking areas:Florida, Texas, parts of California, etc.). Once we took PR-for example-, we "introduced" Spanish as a US language (where Spanish is still the primary language). The other option would be, like the British in Ireland, to 'outlaw' the existing language of a conquered land. Why don't we all, in the NE, speak Haudenosaunee ;). (after all, if you come to a place to live then you must learn the language-- from Colonial times on, the US has a lousy track record ...)

PS. sorry if I upset anyone :( I know this issue can be unsettling. Instead, I don't see a consistency with historical precedents for this one ...
Just out of curiosity - did the German (or other foriegn language) schools force the English speaking kids to go there? Because I thought most of those schools didn't enforce de-segregation like modern ones do. But I could be wrong :confused:

[Thekla]

Just out of curiosity - did the German (or other foriegn language) schools force the English speaking kids to go there? Because I thought most of those schools didn't enforce de-segregation like modern ones do. But I could be wrong :confused:
they were regional, in heavily German extraction areas (the ones I know of were in "backwater" Pa). I do not know much of the particulars; I know of them through conversation with former students.

In the midwest, they were -AFAIK- primarily private.

PR still lists Spanish as the 'first language' and English as 'second'.

It would be interesting to know how public education was handled in newly acquired Spanish speaking areas, and how the US govt dealt with the language issue among "removed" Orthodox children in Alaska.

In Ireland, one became a "linguistic foreigner" in one's own land.

[Dorothea]

Much of Florida was Spanish speaking before we acquired it, as was/is much of Texas, California and Puerto Rico. With the annexation of Puerto Rico, we could either force the residents to learn a new language (as the Brits tried to do in Ireland) or permit Spanish to be used as the primary language (which it still is). Citizens of PR are US citizens. Likewise, German was the primary language in some public schools until WWI, and Europeans coming here did not customarily use the native languages (native American, Spanish in portions of Florida, Texas, etc) as their "official language". These examples are what I mean when I refer to the "muddiness" of historical precedent.
Thanks for the info, Thekla. I know that PR is a Spanish-speaking country/province (whatever it's called lol). I just didn't know about Florida.

Still doesn't make me change my mind about the United States (with exception of PR...talking about the states from AK-WY) should have English as the official language. :sorry:

[rusmeister]

There is a big difference between having a foreign empire impose a language (Ireland, or Russian in the former Soviet Union 'republics') and having a minority of immigrants continue to immigrate, try to make themselves a majority and impose their language on a people. If they win, 50-75 years from now, it will be a moot issue. If this is prevented now, America may still remain a predominantly English language country.

When I moved to CA, I experienced culture shock, and part of it was the domination of Spanish language and Mexican culture - the pick-ups flying huge Mexican flags, more Spanish than English in the stores, etc and felt like I was in a different country. What had seemed far away became close-up and personal.

The fact is, may the best man win, sadly enough. The Soviet Union's failures in FSU states and England's failure in Ireland to change the language of the people means that...they lost. On the other hand, the American colonists imposition of English on the territories was thorough. They won. They became my ancestors, not the native Indians they found there (well, OK, I had a grandmother with a little Indian blood in her) and English became the language of my country, not some other one. If Americans are too stupid to prevent another people from moving in, taking the land and de facto changing the language and culture, then their grandchildren will get what they themselves deserve and become a minority in their own country. At this time it is still possible (although rather difficult) to prevent this.

Strategically - we shouldn't care too much, as everything is in God's hands, but I love my country and don't want it to become the US of Mexico. America DOES have a culture that is NOT one of immigrants, despite the rhetoric and flap such people (generally a 'leftist' sin) generate. Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan were the products of people who had already gone native. The language of the founding fathers, which formed the kind of government that gave us a relative lot of freedom for so long and still tolerates nonsense from immigrant supporters, was English. The culture that produced Mexicans produced nothing of the kind.

Like I said, I understand immigrants better than most, being one. For that reason, I value my own country, understand the desire of Mexicans to retain the own language and culture in a foreign land, and they have my sympathy as far as that goes. But (music, maestro!) "This...is...my...country..."

Public schools never had German or any other language as a primary language. Watch out for historical revisionism! Yes you no doubt had communities where German was used and predominated, but its usage shrank as the people properly assimilated. You can say that the Amish haven't, but then the Mexicans don't hold the basic beliefs and philosophy of the Amish.

Gotta run!

[Thekla]

There is a big difference between having a foreign empire impose a language (Ireland, or Russian in the former Soviet Union 'republics')or our imposed requirements on the Native Americans, possibly including Alaska -- should check on acquired Spanish territory (Florida west through California and north, including portions of Alaska) ...


and having a minority of immigrants continue to immigrate, some of the earliest (recent) influx of Spanish speakers were from Puerto Rico - US citizens who had/have Spanish as their primary language. The annexation of PR (to repeat) tacitly made Spanish an official language of the US


try to make themselves a majority and impose their language on a people. If they win, 50-75 years from now, it will be a moot issue. If this is prevented now, America may still remain a predominantly English language country.

When I moved to CA, I experienced culture shock, and part of it was the domination of Spanish language and Mexican culture - the pick-ups flying huge Mexican flags, more Spanish than English in the stores, etc and felt like I was in a different country. What had seemed far away became close-up and personal. The regions you mention have historically been Spanish speaking; though many Spanish speakers moved south of the Rio Grande, others remained.
Its no accident that town names and architecture bear a Mexican imprint.

Some more recent immigrants have followed the internal paths of US Spanish speaking citizens coming from PR.

The fact is, may the best man win, sadly enough. The Soviet Union's failures in FSU states and England's failure in Ireland to change the language of the people means that...they lost. On the other hand, the American colonists imposition of English on the territories was thorough. They won. They became my ancestors, not the native Indians they found there (well, OK, I had a grandmother with a little Indian blood in her) and English became the language of my country, not some other one. If Americans are too stupid to prevent another people from moving in, taking the land and de facto changing the language and culture, then their grandchildren will get what they themselves deserve and become a minority in their own country. At this time it is still possible (although rather difficult) to prevent this.(BTW, it took a recent, concerted and deliberate effort to keep Irish 'alive' - the gaelteachts, for example - the British almost won this effort)

I guess I'm not a "winner take all" kinda guy; the brutality of our victory is writ more recently in the annals of Orthodox Alaska. It rather opened my eyes. Further, dominance through language is a more recent addition to empire building, largely from the British. Note that the British settlers (with the exception of the Quakers) had the most distasteful interactions with the American Indians; neither the French nor Spanish showed such consistent condescension. More long lived empires (Greece, Rome) typically permitted local customs and languages to continue.

Strategically - we shouldn't care too much, as everything is in God's hands, but I love my country and don't want it to become the US of Mexico.By some accounts (diary of Colonel Hitchcock, concurrent with events), our acquisition of Mexican territory was "opportunity" based on (deliberate) subterfuge. Perhaps the "US of Mexico" is turnabout.
;)


America DOES have a culture that is NOT one of immigrants, despite the rhetoric and flap such people (generally a 'leftist' sin) generate. Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan were the products of people who had already gone native. The language of the founding fathers, which formed the kind of government that gave us a relative lot of freedom for so long and still tolerates nonsense from immigrant supporters, was English. The culture that produced Mexicans produced nothing of the kind. I'm sure that Mexican culture has some value :)

I'm not, BTW pro or anti immigrant. Again, I think it best to take an objective look at our history to find a precedent. Clearly we, as Orthodox, can understand the grave injustice in Alaska as a 'family matter'. Historically, we messed up the language issue in PR 100 years ago. Practically, our British inheritance is not the apex of development, culturally or morally. (Part Brit, here :) ). At least the French, unlike the British colonists, thought the American Indians did have souls.

Like I said, I understand immigrants better than most, being one. For that reason, I value my own country, understand the desire of Mexicans to retain the own language and culture in a foreign land, and they have my sympathy as far as that goes. But (music, maestro!) "This...is...my...country..."
Public schools never had German or any other language as a primary language.

Watch out for historical revisionism! my "historical revisionism" came from personal conversations (myself and my minister-dad) with parish members in the Fredericksburg, Pa. area (late 70's conversations with then elderly individuals). One woman, Verna W. pronounced her name "Werna V." Which is also a pretty much US American phenomena; my mom had to help a Boston telephone operator understand a Virginia telephone operator - both were speaking English ^_^


These were not recent immigrants (yet people there still spoke with the low German cadence and often ended sentences with a preposition)

and I moved around enough as a kid to know that what you put in the Thanksgiving turkey can be (in US English): stuffing, filling or wadding ^_^. No need to start on the variations of what "drawers" can mean !


Yes you no doubt had communities where German was used and predominated, but its usage shrank as the people properly assimilated. You can say that the Amish haven't, but then the Mexicans don't hold the basic beliefs and philosophy of the Amish.
actually (although likely not exclusively) among those I've met (both Anabaptists and Mexicans) there is still a great emphasis on family and self-sacrifice for family and community.

if foreign language useage among immigrants "shrinks" with assimilation, is it not reasonable to assume this also may happen again ? It took some areas in Pa about 100 years (with the exception of some of the Anabaptist communities) to 'lose' their German.

If I didn't make it clear, I'm not fully comfortable with either position -- which is why I started looking for clear historical and moral clues. As usual, none of it is clear. What is clear, is that there are a number of competing precedents. PR, (Spanish speaking US)
anecdotal personal evidence of at least bilingual schools, failure of colonial immigrants to learn the native language(s)- why should we expect more recent immigrants to not follow this "American way" - and forced language conversion (a la UK).

In summary (of a meandering response), I think this issue is better approached through thoughtful dialogue based on history and self-inspection. It is often when we feel unheard that we begin to shout, and become entrenched in emotional positions. This "gulf" can occur both with and without a shared language.

As a Christian, I find myself having to re-evaluate everything all the time in " light of Christ".

I rather suspect the immigration issue - and the language issue - ebb and flow based on fear rather than reason. Like politics. At my age, I have come to think that anything is too important to leave to politics.


Thanks (to Dorothea as well ) for allowing an opportunity to discuss this issue !

(PS, my own family history: my grandfather - Greek - was the most recent immigrant in my line. From both sides -- we've been trickling over since the 17th century - my Pa family's first progenitor arrived in the 1680s-ish).

[Philothei]

I have not read any of this thread... but I am an immigrant so to speak... If the majority of the poplulation would be spanish so .. spanish will be the language it is simple... Why then we want english in the churches in America? because for now that is the language of the land... well.... it may change and become spanish ...I do not have a problem with that. In true democratic countries that should not be an issue...IMO. It is sad that this ..issue has become political too...

[AxionEsti]

English, or American English, is a simple language to learn. I like the idea of our schools teaching more languages to their classes, as we are way behind European countries in this.

It should not be that difficult for immigrants to learn English. There are classes for English as a Second Language at the local junior college for $20 per unit (this price may go down after the next election, since it's on the ballot to lower it). It should be easy enough, as we have many immigrants who are willing and able to learn English in a fashion better than the "born-here" citizens.

[Dorothea]

English, or American English, is a simple language to learn. I like the idea of our schools teaching more languages to their classes, as we are way behind European countries in this.

It should not be that difficult for immigrants to learn English. There are classes for English as a Second Language at the local junior college for $20 per unit (this price may go down after the next election, since it's on the ballot to lower it). It should be easy enough, as we have many immigrants who are willing and able to learn English in a fashion better than the "born-here" citizens.
yeah, look at the Asians. They're letters (pictures) are nothing like the English letters/alphabet, but they learn and thrive here.

[AxionEsti]

yeah, look at the Asians. They're letters (pictures) are nothing like the English letters/alphabet, but they learn and thrive here.
They certainly do. Also, the Mexican immigrants know English better than they let on, sometimes. It probably takes about two years to become fluent in English - or less with classes - enough to get around in a store, or other business.

[Llauralin]

They certainly do. Also, the Mexican immigrants know English better than they let on, sometimes. It probably takes about two years to become fluent in English - or less with classes - enough to get around in a store, or other business.
They've done studies - it takes an average of 5-7 years to become fully fluent (to a high school level) in English, according to my Education professor.

[Dorothea]

They've done studies - it takes an average of 5-7 years to become fully fluent (to a high school level) in English, according to my Education professor.
I can see that for adults, but what about for children? I believe young kids absorb languages very easily and quickly, and remember what they've learned (if they practice it too). My son has learned Spanish already (the basic numbers 1-10, saying hi, bye, and some other basics), and he's only in pre-k 4.

[Thekla]

I can see that for adults, but what about for children? I believe young kids absorb languages very easily and quickly, and remember what they've learned (if they practice it too). My son has learned Spanish already (the basic numbers 1-10, saying hi, bye, and some other basics), and he's only in pre-k 4.
in general, the younger the better (early "language circuits" are still 'open'). Also, if your child knows 2 languages, he'll learn additional languages with greater ease. (my pappou was fluent in 12 -- if 'dead languages' count. I stumble around one ^_^)

[rusmeister]

or our imposed requirements on the Native Americans, possibly including Alaska -- should check on acquired Spanish territory (Florida west through California and north, including portions of Alaska) ...

some of the earliest (recent) influx of Spanish speakers were from Puerto Rico - US citizens who had/have Spanish as their primary language. The annexation of PR (to repeat) tacitly made Spanish an official language of the US

The regions you mention have historically been Spanish speaking; though many Spanish speakers moved south of the Rio Grande, others remained.
Its no accident that town names and architecture bear a Mexican imprint.

Some more recent immigrants have followed the internal paths of US Spanish speaking citizens coming from PR.

(BTW, it took a recent, concerted and deliberate effort to keep Irish 'alive' - the gaelteachts, for example - the British almost won this effort)

I guess I'm not a "winner take all" kinda guy; the brutality of our victory is writ more recently in the annals of Orthodox Alaska. It rather opened my eyes. Further, dominance through language is a more recent addition to empire building, largely from the British. Note that the British settlers (with the exception of the Quakers) had the most distasteful interactions with the American Indians; neither the French nor Spanish showed such consistent condescension. More long lived empires (Greece, Rome) typically permitted local customs and languages to continue.

By some accounts (diary of Colonel Hitchcock, concurrent with events), our acquisition of Mexican territory was "opportunity" based on (deliberate) subterfuge. Perhaps the "US of Mexico" is turnabout.
;)

This accepts use of a term that I don’t accept: “Native American”. Everybody is native to somewhere. By the logic of this term, I am native to nowhere. By using it, you buy into the logic of the term, just like by saying one “is gay”, you buy into the logic that that is what they are. I say “American Indian” (also a mistaken term, but by very long conventional use, is not accidentally misunderstood for people from India) in reference to ethnicity or history, but if you don’t like that, “First American” would be OK by me…

There are many injustices in human relations – we are all sinners. Nevertheless, objective realities are created from those relations, such as imperial annexation. They may be unfair, but they are fact, and the realities they create are fact. The essential annexation by the US of Spanish territory (it was ‘Mexican’ for only 25 years (1820-1845) – Mexico simply claimed those territories when they declared independence from Spain, a fact that many people seem to miss) created a reality of spoken English into what had been Spanish speaking territories. Today we have a reversal, also a reality, where Americans, divided and confused by sophistry, are letting millions of illegal immigrants cross our borders, which will eventually, and unjustly de facto reverse the linguistic divide. It is good and well to ponder on the wrongs that were done, but it doesn’t change the reality of the linguistic changes.


I rather suspect the immigration issue - and the language issue - ebb and flow based on fear rather than reason. Like politics. At my age, I have come to think that anything is too important to leave to politics.


Anger has two basic sources:
Fear of what can happen in the future
or
Sadness about what is happening or has happened in the past.

Must fear be the only motivator? And is fear of a less desirable outcome wrong?
I just don’t think that there is a dichotomy between fear and reason here. My reason may happen to disagree with yours, but that doesn’t make it based on fear.



I'm sure that Mexican culture has some value :)

actually (although likely not exclusively) among those I've met (both Anabaptists and Mexicans) there is still a great emphasis on family and self-sacrifice for family and community.


At a certain point, the question must arise, “Is my own language and culture worth preserving?” Multiculturalists feel that it isn’t. They are so busy embracing other cultures that they in effect reject their own; in teaching their children Chinese history and Mexican fairy tales, Uncle Remus, Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan get thrown overboard.

I do agree that other cultures have value, and also that everything needs to be examined in the light of Christ. Indeed, one of the things I would gladly communicate to my own family (to help you make your point) is that I have found things of value in other cultures and even aspects of life superior to our own. But of course, they don’t want to hear that.

Nevertheless, what value do we place on what our own ancestors thought important? Surely, all other things being equal, we would think our own tradition had some value? This is the problem of pluralism (seems more like Nihilism in the long run), to devalue that which is nearest to us in favor of that which is further. (Makes me think of CS Lewis in Screwtape talking about transferring all virtue to that which is far away and all vice to that which is near.)

Finally ( a small but noteworthy point), it is a fact that limitations of time and space prevent us from embracing foreign cultures while completely retaining our own. If a child spends 7 hours in school, and 2 are devoted to multicultural concepts, that’s two hours not spent learning about one’s own culture, for better or worse. There are only so many languages that governments edicts or street signs can be posted in, and when they do multiply, they take up more space. It’s not like you can have 100% own culture plus extra. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.



if foreign language usage among immigrants "shrinks" with assimilation, is it not reasonable to assume this also may happen again ? It took some areas in Pa about 100 years (with the exception of some of the Anabaptist communities) to 'lose' their German.

The big determiner of whether assimilation will happen is whether or not it is needed. In large communities where the national language is not needed, assimilation will not happen. The German assimilation happened because their numbers were never sufficient to overwhelm the local population of English speakers. This time it’s different. We have ever growing numbers of Spanish speakers gradually asserting their domination over the Southwest (and southern Florida), and immigration situations in most other parts of the country mirroring the immigration in the Southwest some 40 years ago. They do not see the pressing need to learn English and assimilate that the Dutch /Germans did. The ones that want to will, of course. The problem is that most people are most comfortable with only one culture/language.

May the best culture win!

[Thekla]

This accepts use of a term that I don’t accept: “Native American”. Everybody is native to somewhere. By the logic of this term, I am native to nowhere. By using it, you buy into the logic of the term, just like by saying one “is gay”, you buy into the logic that that is what they are. I say “American Indian” (also a mistaken term, but by very long conventional use, is not accidentally misunderstood for people from India) in reference to ethnicity or history, but if you don’t like that, “First American” would be OK by me… I've never been able to find an appropriate term myself ^_^. Possibly aboriginal ? (allowing, of course, for the immigration of all humans to places outside the originating point of human existence). So I just use the accepted for ease of communication.

There are many injustices in human relations – we are all sinners. Nevertheless, objective realities are created from those relations, such as imperial annexation. They may be unfair, but they are fact, and the realities they create are fact. The essential annexation by the US of Spanish territory (it was ‘Mexican’ for only 25 years (1820-1845) – Mexico simply claimed those territories when they declared independence from Spain, a fact that many people seem to miss) created a reality of spoken English into what had been Spanish speaking territories. Today we have a reversal, also a reality, where Americans, divided and confused by sophistry, are letting millions of illegal immigrants cross our borders, which will eventually, and unjustly de facto reverse the linguistic divide. It is good and well to ponder on the wrongs that were done, but it doesn’t change the reality of the linguistic changes. again, illegal immigration in part reflects the objective reality of economic and political abuses by the US within immigrant countries of origin as well as other internal factors. Although states are not typically held to the moral standards that individuals are, I do think that a fuller inspection of 20th cent. US activity in the regions in question exhibits a debased view of the value of human life.

Linguistic changes within and between languages are an historic reality. US English is not the "King's English", and is regionally dissimilar (I grew up in the north, moved south, and found that northern patterns of question formation do not elicit an "answer" in the south).






Anger has two basic sources:
Fear of what can happen in the future
or
Sadness about what is happening or has happened in the past.

Must fear be the only motivator? And is fear of a less desirable outcome wrong?
I just don’t think that there is a dichotomy between fear and reason here. My reason may happen to disagree with yours, but that doesn’t make it based on fearSorry, I didn't mean that statement to be personal. Fear of immigrants has been a feature of US politics and society for most of our history.




At a certain point, the question must arise, “Is my own language and culture worth preserving?” Multiculturalists feel that it isn’t. They are so busy embracing other cultures that they in effect reject their own; in teaching their children Chinese history and Mexican fairy tales, Uncle Remus, Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan get thrown overboard.
Just to clarify - I am not a "multiculturalist", though I have found that all cultures do express some value. As we are an immigrant nation, and probably most families are "mixed", the question becomes, (for example) do I keep my family's Greek, German or British Christmas customs ?How do I, further, integrate my husband's Spanish customs ? What of my neighbor's customs - to which my children are exposed by proximity - though their customs may seem odd, explained within the context of their culture, the value of these practices is found.

In short, for we in the US, what IS our culture ? I don't think we really have one yet -- we are too mixed and too young as a nation.
And when this question arises in the public forum, the conversation is often divided along lines like "Norman Rockwell vs. Jackson Pollack" - with very little mixing over the borders. Personally, the question is "what is there to keep?".
I do agree that other cultures have value, and also that everything needs to be examined in the light of Christ. Indeed, one of the things I would gladly communicate to my own family (to help you make your point) is that I have found things of value in other cultures and even aspects of life superior to our own. But of course, they don’t want to hear that.

Nevertheless, what value do we place on what our own ancestors thought important? Surely, all other things being equal, we would think our own tradition had some value? This is the problem of pluralism (seems more like Nihilism in the long run), to devalue that which is nearest to us in favor of that which is further. (Makes me think of CS Lewis in Screwtape talking about transferring all virtue to that which is far away and all vice to that which is near.) In my own family, cultural pluralism is the norm. I guess we've been in this land too long, and have too many intercultural marriages; we're mutts ^_^

Finally ( a small but noteworthy point), it is a fact that limitations of time and space prevent us from embracing foreign cultures while completely retaining our own. If a child spends 7 hours in school, and 2 are devoted to multicultural concepts, that’s two hours not spent learning about one’s own culture, for better or worse. There are only so many languages that governments edicts or street signs can be posted in, and when they do multiply, they take up more space. It’s not like you can have 100% own culture plus extra. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. in my youth, we discussed these issues in the context of holidays and anthropology (a grade school class entitled "Man; A Course of Study"). I don't know what is done now.

But questions do remain: Puerto Rico is a Spanish speaking part of the USA. As these citizens moved to mainland USA, within their own country, they brought their language and customs. Both of which are, by definition, US customs and language. How do we handle this objective reality and its contribution to the present concern ?

The US tried to erase Orthodox Aleutian (etc) culture and language in Alaska. For us, as Orthodox Christians, how does this inform our view of assimilation among other groups ?




The big determiner of whether assimilation will happen is whether or not it is needed. In large communities where the national language is not needed, assimilation will not happen. The German assimilation happened because their numbers were never sufficient to overwhelm the local population of English speakers. nationally, but not regionally. The shift from educational instruction in German to English in backwater Pa was born of post-war fear, not demographic shift. The woman I spoke of (Verna W.) was US born.

This time it’s different. We have ever growing numbers of Spanish speakers gradually asserting their domination over the Southwest (and southern Florida), and immigration situations in most other parts of the country mirroring the immigration in the Southwest some 40 years ago. They do not see the pressing need to learn English and assimilate that the Dutch /Germans did. The ones that want to will, of course. The problem is that most people are most comfortable with only one culture/language. IIRC, this region includes -originally- many immigrants from PR. Again, their Spanish language and custom was/is USAmerican. These people were asserting the already existing US citizenship.

May the best culture win! honestly, in my view, the winner is not always the best. Just the stronger, with the resources appropriate for the moment.

EDIT - as I struggle to figure this out :)

Its, as said before, quite hard to sort this out.

Immigrants tended to settle in areas reflecting their language and culture, and later move out of these enclaves. Pa as an example again: portions of this commonwealth were settled by Germans (initially through invitation by William Penn). Later German immigrants selected Pa as a destination because of this. (The same can be said of areas of NYCity, with Irish, Italian etc. neighborhoods). Food, festivals etc were long retained in these areas, even as people came and went.

Regional customs - language and cultural practices - typically underwent more rapid change (ie, "assimilation") in times when their foreignness was perceived as threat (in Pa, WWI and WWII). Otherwise, assimilation tends to a more 'organically evolving' time frame.

So the first model is one of partial assimilation (customs retained) over a long time period. This general model is related to a second, where assimilation is more rapid, typically when foreignness is perceived as a reminder of threat (in Pa, external threat). In the second, language and often customs are deliberately discarded rather than 'lost over time'.

As for assimilation in areas of acquired territory, our history includes both forced assimilation (aboriginal peoples, including the Aleut) and tolerance of non-assimilation (Puerto Rico).

In the second case, Puerto Ricans settled on the mainland US and created Spanish speaking enclaves. As members of this first internal migration assimilated and moved to other areas, they were already being replaced by external immigrants moving into already Spanish speaking neighborhoods. Frequently, the social infrastructure in these areas (place markers, official documents available in both Spanish and English, ethnic food markets, practical but not official bilingualism in the schools) was already in place. This is not unlike the first model I mentioned, which has existed since Colonial times.

In times of perceived threat (and in general with American Aboriginal peoples), there is a public and political outcry to engage in what amounts to 'forced/rapid' assimilation. Looking at the cost of this model in human terms -- to both those being forced to assimilate, and those forcing the assimilation -- I wonder at the wisdom of managing assimilation in this way. It also creates, within the family (and larger community) a sort of "cultural vacuum".

Humans have retained and expressed community and value through culture. Which leads to my next concern: what IS our US culture ?
We can all talk about "values", but in pragmatic terms (not idealistic) what are they ? If we look at what is offered in the US, what does the cultural landscape as exhibited in day to day life show our culture to be ? What are our goals, our aspirations as a culture when read through our actions in the domestic and foreign domain? And further, what is distinctly "our" art, our music ? If we ask or force immigrants to assimilate, what are they assimilating to ?
Personally, though possibly a shortcoming of perception on my part, I think language has become an issue in part because we haven't much culture.

The two models I've described can be found with both immigrant and US native born citizens. Since we've never had a consistent method, consistently applied, how do we artificially decide and 'enforce' one or the other ? And finally, we must remember that even 'homegrown' US customs are just an evolution of introduced/foreign customs. And these vary across the US based on the ethnicity of the (initial) settlers in that region. (There was no Oktoberfest in the N and S Carolina where I lived. And no pulled barbecue joints open only on holidays up here in Pa).

I think, if we are going to implement an "assimilation" program in this country, there is a great deal more investigation and dialog needed.

[Dorothea]

in general, the younger the better (early "language circuits" are still 'open'). Also, if your child knows 2 languages, he'll learn additional languages with greater ease. (my pappou was fluent in 12 -- if 'dead languages' count. I stumble around one ^_^)
Wow! Twelve languages! I'm impressed! :D

[Thekla]

just as a side note; the more 'relaxed model' of assimilation has had a beneficial effect on those of us in TAW.

during periods of "forced, rapid assimilation", ones' religious expression is often discarded in preference for the status quo expression (if you want to be really a US American, you need to be Protestant; at one time, 'getting ahead' meant gaining acceptance within the Protestant Church expressed network).

We could find Orthodox Churches in part because immigrants did not "appropriately assimilate" when they came to the US.

PS: Johhny Appleseed planted trees for hard cider, not eating. My grandmother was a life-long member of the WCTU - didn't much like him.

[rusmeister]

Just to clarify - I am not a "multiculturalist", though I have found that all cultures do express some value. As we are an immigrant nation, and probably most families are "mixed", the question becomes, (for example) do I keep my family's Greek, German or British Christmas customs ?How do I, further, integrate my husband's Spanish customs ? What of my neighbor's customs - to which my children are exposed by proximity - though their customs may seem odd, explained within the context of their culture, the value of these practices is found.

In short, for we in the US, what IS our culture ? I don't think we really have one yet -- we are too mixed and too young as a nation.
And when this question arises in the public forum, the conversation is often divided along lines like "Norman Rockwell vs. Jackson Pollack" - with very little mixing over the borders. Personally, the question is "what is there to keep?".
In my own family, cultural pluralism is the norm. I guess we've been in this land too long, and have too many intercultural marriages; we're mutts ^_^

But questions do remain: Puerto Rico is a Spanish speaking part of the USA. As these citizens moved to mainland USA, within their own country, they brought their language and customs. Both of which are, by definition, US customs and language. How do we handle this objective reality and its contribution to the present concern ?

The US tried to erase Orthodox Aleutian (etc) culture and language in Alaska. For us, as Orthodox Christians, how does this inform our view of assimilation among other groups ?


nationally, but not regionally. The shift from educational instruction in German to English in backwater Pa was born of post-war fear, not demographic shift. The woman I spoke of (Verna W.) was US born.

IIRC, this region includes -originally- many immigrants from PR. Again, their Spanish language and custom was/is USAmerican. These people were asserting the already existing US citizenship.

honestly, in my view, the winner is not always the best. Just the stronger, with the resources appropriate for the moment.

EDIT - as I struggle to figure this out :)

Its, as said before, quite hard to sort this out.

Immigrants tended to settle in areas reflecting their language and culture, and later move out of these enclaves. Pa as an example again: portions of this commonwealth were settled by Germans (initially through invitation by William Penn). Later German immigrants selected Pa as a destination because of this. (The same can be said of areas of NYCity, with Irish, Italian etc. neighborhoods). Food, festivals etc were long retained in these areas, even as people came and went.

Regional customs - language and cultural practices - typically underwent more rapid change (ie, "assimilation") in times when their foreignness was perceived as threat (in Pa, WWI and WWII). Otherwise, assimilation tends to a more 'organically evolving' time frame.

So the first model is one of partial assimilation (customs retained) over a long time period. This general model is related to a second, where assimilation is more rapid, typically when foreignness is perceived as a reminder of threat (in Pa, external threat). In the second, language and often customs are deliberately discarded rather than 'lost over time'.

As for assimilation in areas of acquired territory, our history includes both forced assimilation (aboriginal peoples, including the Aleut) and tolerance of non-assimilation (Puerto Rico).

In the second case, Puerto Ricans settled on the mainland US and created Spanish speaking enclaves. As members of this first internal migration assimilated and moved to other areas, they were already being replaced by external immigrants moving into already Spanish speaking neighborhoods. Frequently, the social infrastructure in these areas (place markers, official documents available in both Spanish and English, ethnic food markets, practical but not official bilingualism in the schools) was already in place. This is not unlike the first model I mentioned, which has existed since Colonial times.

In times of perceived threat (and in general with American Aboriginal peoples), there is a public and political outcry to engage in what amounts to 'forced/rapid' assimilation. Looking at the cost of this model in human terms -- to both those being forced to assimilate, and those forcing the assimilation -- I wonder at the wisdom of managing assimilation in this way. It also creates, within the family (and larger community) a sort of "cultural vacuum".

Humans have retained and expressed community and value through culture. Which leads to my next concern: what IS our US culture ?
We can all talk about "values", but in pragmatic terms (not idealistic) what are they ? If we look at what is offered in the US, what does the cultural landscape as exhibited in day to day life show our culture to be ? What are our goals, our aspirations as a culture when read through our actions in the domestic and foreign domain? And further, what is distinctly "our" art, our music ? If we ask or force immigrants to assimilate, what are they assimilating to ?
Personally, though possibly a shortcoming of perception on my part, I think language has become an issue in part because we haven't much culture.

The two models I've described can be found with both immigrant and US native born citizens. Since we've never had a consistent method, consistently applied, how do we artificially decide and 'enforce' one or the other ? And finally, we must remember that even 'homegrown' US customs are just an evolution of introduced/foreign customs. And these vary across the US based on the ethnicity of the (initial) settlers in that region. (There was no Oktoberfest in the N and S Carolina where I lived. And no pulled barbecue joints open only on holidays up here in Pa).

I think, if we are going to implement an "assimilation" program in this country, there is a great deal more investigation and dialog needed.

Clash of the Titans continues... :)

Yes, it is huge and there are a thousand thoughts, it seems.

My arguments stem from a dogma that America is a country established by people who were determined to create a land of freedom founded on dogma. Their language was English. Not Spanish. Not Chinese. They were representatives of a particular culture and their beliefs reflected that. Not all cultures are created equal. Some cultures, like ancient Rome, were polytheistic, some, like Spain, on a pragmatic (rather than idealistic) form of Catholicism, a few, like Carthage, and Mexico’s proud Aztec civilization, on devil worship and human sacrifice. Mexicans, for instance, do not even see themselves as purely Spanish/Catholic, but of having their own identity that also embraces (what was left of) the native cultures. (I worked with Mexicans for several years – see my education thread.) Pluralism, of a necessity, leads to relativism – seeing good in everything and trying to embrace it all.

Also that there is indeed an American culture. This is where we seem to really part ways. It is possible and in fact happens, for a new culture to develop over a few generations, with the appearance of traditions, in the context of a specific language (or specific mix of them). Probably the best analogy is soup. The salad bowl analogy is nonsense, and a formula for civil war. A melting pot that produces one bland universal product is also nonsense. But soup – here we have a single product – it is no longer to separate the elements and have something viable, there are elements that are clearly distinct from one another, as diced potatoes and grated carrot, but all attain a particular color and are in a common broth, that is not merely geographical location but cultural as well. The Hispanic question is becoming one of throwing raw vegetables into a boiled chicken noodle soup, and maybe these hard beets are floating around in the broth, but they are not part of the soup. But if they could get enough beets in there, eventually they could change the chicken noodle soup into borsch. At least you wouldn't call it chicken noodle soup anymore.

You ask me what American culture is. I’ve already offered a few examples. To them I will add Lincoln, Franklin, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Helen Keller, Frederick Douglass, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie (have to strike Chevrolet from the list – parts now made in Maylasia), football, jazz, etc etc. In questions of individual taste, of course people will choose baseball or football, the Yankees or the Reds, Rockwell vs Pollack. That IS the culture, including immigrant contributions. You can choose cultural elements to accent – to that extent, yes, you may say it is ‘pluralist’. But when we accept everything – foreign beliefs above all, we become nothing. We can lose our unique identity as Americans by letting it dissolve into the soup of world culture. An end result of that is the bottom line of pluralism – what you believe doesn’t matter. We will have nothing in common with our fellow countrymen. Nothing in common with our next-door neighbors - because we all embrace utterly different things, right down to philosophies. We can live together ‘in peace’ because what one believes is a purely personal affair – it doesn’t affect society.

Also, there is a fundamental distinction between a superior power taking a land by force and imposing its culture and language, and immigrants moving to a superior power and attempting to gradually convert it to their own. (“Excuse us, we didn’t/couldn’t build our own house very well, and we like yours better, so let us in!”
Now a Christian on a personal level may well feel led to take in such people into their own home. But the one thing they mustn’t do is force this ideal on others.)
This is (unintentionally, I'm sure) baiting and switching. (In Russian “podmena ponyatii”) Examples like Alaska speak of the former. Mexicans into the US is the latter, a different kettle of fish. Historically speaking, the US incursion into the Spanish speaking territories (which themselves were incursion into the lands settled by the Indian cultures they found there) was the former, but so what? What do you propose to do to change history? We might as well speak of the wrongness of the Fall of Adam and Eve. We have to deal with what is, even while understanding what was.

I agree on your point of forced vs organic assimilation. However, in most cases, outside of ethnic ghettos, assimilation happened rapidly out of sheer necessity even in times of peace/non-threat.
It may clarify my stand to say that I am objecting to further immigration, rather than advocating the coercion of existing legal immigrants. That we cannot take in any more right now without a serious threat to our own identity (the soup analogy, above). As a person who eats too much or the addition of a chemical compound for some purpose or other, there comes a limit beyond which it is unhealthy to take in any more without digesting what you have. We have had peace for 200 years because in the end, by and large immigrants assimilated. What is different now is that we are faced with the real possibility of a majority that will not assimilate. I agree that we cannot force assimilation. But we can control immigration. What does a body do with something that refuses to be digested if it wants to remain healthy?

On Puerto Rico – my call would be to dump it. Now. Give them independence and let them enjoy the freedom of other such nations. As it is, we get a crummy little island and they get US citizenship, and the wedge to further Hispanicize us. PR is not a united state and I don’t see them as Americans, any more than Filipinos are. Sure, they speak English with an accent, but so do lots of people around the world. Territory status is an absurdity designed to let a government have its cake and eat it, too. I would dissolve it and give the territories independence. But sticking to realities, I’ll just say that if they step foot on the United States they should learn English if they wish to have dealings with our government. They do not have a ‘right’ to be served in Spanish.

I don’t really even want to repeat this, but I will champion legitimate immigrant rights for the obvious reason that I am one myself, and I have a better – first-hand – perspective on what it means to be one. I am an American, I will not give up my US citizenship, I am doing my best to raise my kids as American as possible, but I see as astounding arrogance the idea of insisting on a right to impose my language and culture on another people (except where they specifically ask me to).


Quote:
May the best culture win!

honestly, in my view, the winner is not always the best. Just the stronger, with the resources appropriate for the moment.


This I agree with. But again, it is the ideal vs the reality. We should start with the ideal, but must react to the reality.

On a side note – the concept of ‘knowing’ languages and being fluent in them varies. If a person says they know a dozen languages, it may be that they have a level of what we call BICS (Basic Information and Communication Skills); ie, they can get around. It may be that they can express their own thoughts perfectly in a foreign language. But complete cultural fluency – where one knows the culture as well and can understand what everybody else is talking about – is only attainable in practical terms, in 1 or 2 foreign languages. It simply is not possible to keep current on all of the cultural knowledge of a large number of countries at once. An example would be the elderly Chinese gentleman or middle-aged Spanish scientist who has no clue when you begin speaking of Tom Sawyer, Ebenezer Scrooge, Bugs Bunny or Al Gore. They may be highly educated and fully capable of communicating in English, but won’t get the jokes or understand references.

[Thekla]

Clash of the Titans continues... :)
^_^

thanks for taking the time to respond !
Yes, it is huge and there are a thousand thoughts, it seems.

My arguments stem from a dogma that America is a country established by people who were determined to create a land of freedom founded on dogma. Their language was English.agreed.

a bit of a side note:
But the French and Spanish colonists weren't being taxed by the UK for the war to protect the interests of the English settlers in America. The particulars that gave rise to the call for independence were not a shared experience among other colonial interests. And the addition of Spanish and French speaking areas to the US was not an expression of the ideal of freedom. Also, the anabaptist population in Pa, as participation in politics was against their religion, could not have (without an invitation, a la Wm Penn)
participated.





Mexicans, for instance, do not even see themselves as purely Spanish/Catholic, but of having their own identity that also embraces (what was left of) the native cultures. (I worked with Mexicans for several years – see my education thread.)yes, and in this find solidarity with the aboriginal peoples of N America (-- the question arises, are these part of "American culture, too ? BTW, my US born husband lived 10 years in Mexico and Colombia in 'his youth')



Pluralism, of a necessity, leads to relativism – seeing good in everything and trying to embrace it all.
i agree, not all should be "accepted" - but this process, in every nation, often evolves, rather than proceeds by design.
Also that there is indeed an American culture. This is where we seem to really part ways. It is possible and in fact happens, for a new culture to develop over a few generations, with the appearance of traditions, in the context of a specific language (or specific mix of them).guess I've moved around too much -- I don't know whether to associate it with Oktoberfest or pulled barbecue ;)


Probably the best analogy is soup. The salad bowl analogy is nonsense, and a formula for civil war. A melting pot that produces one bland universal product is also nonsense. But soup – here we have a single product – it is no longer to separate the elements and have something viable, there are elements that are clearly distinct from one another, as diced potatoes and grated carrot, but all attain a particular color and are in a common broth, that is not merely geographical location but cultural as well. The Hispanic question is becoming one of throwing raw vegetables into a boiled chicken noodle soup, and maybe these hard beets are floating around in the broth, but they are not part of the soup. But if they could get enough beets in there, eventually they could change the chicken noodle soup into borsch. At least you wouldn't call it chicken noodle soup anymore. Soup is definitely better than 'melting pot', or perhaps better than "salamagundi" -- but again, this happens naturally.

You ask me what American culture is. I’ve already offered a few examples. To them I will add Lincoln, Franklin, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Helen Keller, Frederick Douglass, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie (have to strike Chevrolet from the list – parts now made in Maylasia), football, jazz, etc etc. In questions of individual taste, of course people will choose baseball or football, the Yankees or the Reds, Rockwell vs Pollack. That IS the culture, including immigrant contributions. You can choose cultural elements to accent – to that extent, yes, you may say it is ‘pluralist’. Good examples (except hot dogs are pale German, and apples aren't native, and Chevrolet is becoming the norm); and I think part of the problem is that our culture is its 'diversity', with the exception of franchises and chains :(



But when we accept everything – foreign beliefs above all, we become nothing. like all ideals, ours were influenced by thinkers from other cultures - France, Greece, etc. But I think I know what you mean -- yet we have yet to /rapidly/ allow any other thought influence our own. (Ex., our foreign policy view of China as a "big market" is about 100 years old).


We can lose our unique identity as Americans by letting it dissolve into the soup of world culture. actually, I think the rest of the world thinks we're trying to do this to them ('make them American').


An end result of that is the bottom line of pluralism – what you believe doesn’t matter. We will have nothing in common with our fellow countrymen. Nothing in common with our next-door neighbors - because we all embrace utterly different things, right down to philosophies. We can live together ‘in peace’ because what one believes is a purely personal affair – it doesn’t affect society. perhaps wrongly, but this was my experience growing up in Va., Md., upstate NY, and Pa. There was much in terms of values and culture that was vastly different, region to region.

Also, there is a fundamental distinction between a superior power taking a land by force and imposing its culture and language, and immigrants moving to a superior power and attempting to gradually convert it to their own. (“Excuse us, we didn’t/couldn’t build our own house very well, and we like yours better, so let us in!” this is why I think we opened the language floodgate with Puerto Rico. Its a done deal, and history now.


Now a Christian on a personal level may well feel led to take in such people into their own home. But the one thing they mustn’t do is force this ideal on others.)This is (unintentionally, I'm sure) baiting and switching. (In Russian “podmena ponyatii”) Examples like Alaska speak of the former. Mexicans into the US is the latter, a different kettle of fish. Historically speaking, the US incursion into the Spanish speaking territories (which themselves were incursion into the lands settled by the Indian cultures they found there) was the former, but so what? What do you propose to do to change history? We might as well speak of the wrongness of the Fall of Adam and Eve. We have to deal with what is, even while understanding what was. again - and I've yet to research this, apologies - whatever we did or didn't do then influences what is happening now. I do wonder if the remaining Mexicans retained language use, kept to their 'villages' or not. Anyway, when I've time, it'd be interesting to know -- and how this model effects what is going on now.

I agree on your point of forced vs organic assimilation. However, in most cases, outside of ethnic ghettos, assimilation happened rapidly out of sheer necessity even in times of peace/non-threat. likely especially with the westward expansion - though I sense these groups were less mixed as language groups. The areas where I grew up still retained the character of the originating culture(s).
(When we moved to Pa, based on my upstate NY accent, the other students thought I was an exchange student )
It may clarify my stand to say that I am objecting to further immigration, rather than advocating the coercion of existing legal immigrants. I figured (and actually, at this point, agree AFAIK)



That we cannot take in any more right now without a serious threat to our own identity (the soup analogy, above). As a person who eats too much or the addition of a chemical compound for some purpose or other, there comes a limit beyond which it is unhealthy to take in any more without digesting what you have. We have had peace for 200 years because in the end, by and large immigrants assimilated. What is different now is that we are faced with the real possibility of a majority that will not assimilate. I agree that we cannot force assimilation. But we can control immigration. What does a body do with something that refuses to be digested if it wants to remain healthy? Actually, what the country won't assimilate, Madison Avenue will (please excuse my cynicism). Any "culture" moving here eventually gets commodified then gutted of depth, tossed over til the next one comes along. St. Patrick's Day is a good example. Now its largely become a drinking holiday (especially after Coors bought out Killeans Red to compete with Harp and Guiness. Given the French plans per the Civil War, I'm surprised anyone celebrates Cinco de Mayo in the Southern USA)

On Puerto Rico – my call would be to dump it. Now. Give them independence and let them enjoy the freedom of other such nations. As it is, we get a crummy little island and they get US citizenship, and the wedge to further Hispanicize us. PR is not a united state and I don’t see them as Americans, any more than Filipinos are. Sure, they speak English with an accent, but so do lots of people around the world. Territory status is an absurdity designed to let a government have its cake and eat it, too. I would dissolve it and give the territories independence. But sticking to realities, I’ll just say that if they step foot on the United States they should learn English if they wish to have dealings with our government. They do not have a ‘right’ to be served in Spanish. I think whatever we do with PR, the die is cast -- and PR is one of the big hurdles in the language issue.

I don’t really even want to repeat this, but I will champion legitimate immigrant rights for the obvious reason that I am one myself, and I have a better – first-hand – perspective on what it means to be one. I am an American, I will not give up my US citizenship, I am doing my best to raise my kids as American as possible, but I see as astounding arrogance the idea of insisting on a right to impose my language and culture on another people (except where they specifically ask me to).
I agree - though I don't know how USAmerican my view is, I too wish to raise my children as responsible citizens. And I must say, I often find more of some of the 'core USAmerican values - work, family, community -moreso among immigrants than native born citizens.


On a side note – the concept of ‘knowing’ languages and being fluent in them varies. If a person says they know a dozen languages, it may be that they have a level of what we call BICS (Basic Information and Communication Skills); ie, they can get around. It may be that they can express their own thoughts perfectly in a foreign language. But complete cultural fluency – where one knows the culture as well and can understand what everybody else is talking about – is only attainable in practical terms, in 1 or 2 foreign languages. It simply is not possible to keep current on all of the cultural knowledge of a large number of countries at once. An example would be the elderly Chinese gentleman or middle-aged Spanish scientist who has no clue when you begin speaking of Tom Sawyer, Ebenezer Scrooge, Bugs Bunny or Al Gore. They may be highly educated and fully capable of communicating in English, but won’t get the jokes or understand references. My Pappou grew up in Constantinople (what we always called it). He used to translate newspapers for pocket change. (I remember a walk I took with his brother -- Uncle Milto discussed the "gendering of nouns" (cat, dog, moon, etc) in several languages. ) It seems Pappou and his siblings benefited from growing up in a port city. I don't think he fully retained all of them, but I knew him to be able to communicate in Greek, Turkish, French, German, Armenian (he had Armenian classmates at Anatolia College) and of course US English.
He was quite proud to be a US citizen. Read the Bible (in Koine), the Encyclopedia Britannica and the dictionary daily - the last, in order to fully know the language of his country of choice.


Thanks, Rusmeister, for taking the time to discuss this. You're a gem ! (and I rather suspect our views are much closer than they appear here :thumbsup:)

[rusmeister]

I agree that there are a lot of points of only apparent disagreement.
Of course, I know the history. My point is not that people didn't (and don't) speak German, but that nearly all learned the dominant language - English - and were able to communicate in it.
I moved to CA some years ago and was shocked to learn the extent to which immigrants didn't know, and didn't really want to know English or assimilate. IOW, they came for the economic benefits, but didn't want to become American. As a public school teacher, I was forced to learn Spanish (my hobby, I love it and I'm good at it) in order to communicate with many of the parents, some of whom were not so terribly recent arrivals. I lived in the middle of a Mexican enclave, so when I speak of pickups flying huge Mexican flags and the large number of people who simply didn't speak English (my son even sitting on the lap of a Spanish-only Santa), I'm talking about what I have seen with my own eyes. This is a huge difference from the much earlier and more assimilated German-speaking communities.

Some things are not native traditions (like Oktoberfest) - these are not 'American' - if they were people wouldn't come to be charmed by a foreign food festival. The fact that they are conducted annually does not make them native. They are organized by immigrants and lovers of the foreign culture that wish to share the best with us.

You're quite right that we do have a culture that we are exporting, and it is much more the worst than the best, commercially rather than culturally driven. Thus, people think of hamburgers as the traditional American dinner and don't know about our steak-and-potatoes plus dinner roll-type traditional foods. Like ancient Rome, we have made bread and circuses (McDonald's and Hollywood) a universal demand across the civilized world.


Quote:
We can lose our unique identity as Americans by letting it dissolve into the soup of world culture.
actually, I think the rest of the world thinks we're trying to do this to them ('make them American').

This is exactly the problem - and it is a mutual process. A greater respect for national borders and less crowing and praising of diversity would give a much greater true diversity across the world. The first thing that should be respected is a love for one's own country and culture - and this is what I'm complaining about. I was raised in upstate NY in a monolingual, monocultural poor white family, and we had a most definitely American culture with not a hint of European, Asian or other foreign influence. Everything that had come from other cultures had already gone native (by the process you describe).
Also agree on Madison Avenue - that is the process I am complaining about going in the reverse direction. In claiming to be respective and inclusive, the individuality of cultures is mixed into this bland universal and mostly spending-driven soup. The horrible and evil word 'consumer' should be a word that we reject in relation to human beings. (Other words, like 'human resources' also fall into this category, but I digress.)

As to PR, all I'm saying is that the existing immigrants would eventually organically assimilate. Those that didn't want to could go back to their island.

I should say that I don't believe much in our ability to affect change on other than a purely local level, so don't believe in making a political fuss - I'm mostly sad about the destruction of that culture I grew up in in favor of the Madison Avenue multicultural diverse world where nothing matters anymore (leading to that situation where some immigrants have stronger traditional values than Americans born 'n' raised do. It's part of the whole pluralism, diversity and rejection of tradition, especially Christian ones, protestant or otherwise. I think the march will continue and we can't stop it. It's just nice to understand what's happening, rather than be confused and dazed about it.

Thanks for the complement! My hat's off to you! (with a flourish and a bow)