American's Speak Up

Velvet Vocals

FYI - This is the reply that my uncle sent back... fair enough I think.......

I'm not sure i agree with everything butin a few short lines
there is no problem that many people have come here from all over.............. but those who came previously learnt how to speak english or they cope with it , lived by our laws, worked hard and prospered ..............our liberal politations have seem to feel that everything we do, drivers lisense appl., social assistance etc should be spelled out in each persons native language rather than English. plus it seems that many people who enter the country have more rights and benifits than people who lived here all their lives....again our own politations
.in the case of persons who came here previously they all wanted to be Americans 1st with their proud national heritage in the background.
There was an article written in the Australian press stating that if you do not want to live under Australian law & rules then you should move on .....I think that is what we need here. ..........If i find it I'll send it to you
We also have an issue here with our politations concerning God ..mentioning him in public places .saying a prayer in school .even not sayiong the Pledge of allegence because the word God is in it..that has nothing to do with the immigrants...just another frustration.
OK off my high horse........

bonkey

julep wrote:

i personally will not ever let go of what britain did to us.

They didn't do it to us. Their ancestors did it to our ancestors.

There's an important distinction.

i don't hold today's british people responsible, but i still have a hard time looking upon them as equals.

Why? Because their ancestors treated your ancestors somewhat shabbily? You see that as a reason to see today's generation as being somehow beneath you?

I'm guessing if I was to say that the Aussies of today are beneath me because a large number are descended from criminals, you wouldn't leap to my defence....but you'll no duobt argue that your similar judgement of the British is perfectly rational and reasonable.

On the other hand, if I were to point to a bunch of (say) young hiphopsters hanging about in Dublin with their copy-cat fashion, style etc. which they acquired from their musical heroes....would you consider those people (or their heroes) beneath you? Modern media has done more to destroy or change our traditions and culture than the English ever did, or immigrants ever will...so are they sub-julepian as well?

And thats the rub...the basic argument boils down to the notion that we have to stop these bloody foreigners from destroying our culture....because we want to the ones who do that.

Sand wrote:

The email writer is deluded though if they think they can take a snapshot of US culture, brand it the Official US Culture and then refuse to allow any deviation from cultural norms of 2006

Indeed.

Not only that, but it should also be remembered that todays "US culture" is a mish-mash of what were immigrant cultures at various points in time, and as someone was so kind to point out I was mistaken in suggesting that these cultures were greeted with open arms and a great accepting welcome when they arrived.

There is virtually no culture in the US who managed to immigrate there without being victimised for being different (and many of them were originally fleeing their native lands because their differnce was also leading to victimisation).

So what do we have? we have a constantly-changing culture (i.e. one that cannot be defined independantly of time), built from the ground up by the intermingling of various cultures, each of which was persecuted to some degree or another.

We do not even have a total harmonisation of said cultures, even after centuries.

This more than anything is the root of US culture...which makes it funny to see the letter the OP received coming from someone arguing that the US needs to protect its culture from the very things that have defined it from the get-go.

jc

Velvet Vocals

i personally will not ever let go of what britain did to us. they raped us of our culture, language and heritage. i don't hold today's british people responsible, but i still have a hard time looking upon them as equals. i see them more as a sad, broken empire who are still trying to cling onto the last remaining dredges of what was once a world conquering force (see northern Ireland and the falklands for a quick example).

I find that very sad... not sad as in "your a sado" sad as in upsetting. I mean, we all have to move on and let go. If you choose not forgive someone, the person that you hurt the most is your self! It eats you up.:(

w66w66

tallus wrote:

johnthesavage wrote:

Semantics I know.... but I wouldn't consider it to be human nature, I think it's more likely to be a learned thing..

Considering how universal these traits such as xenophobia are in humans, and how prevalent issues such as ethnic conflict and ethnic segregation are, it would seem more logical to suggest it's innate. Also from a genetic perspective, if anyone's every read any of Pierre L. van den Berghe or William D Hamilton's works you would see that it’s very probable that some sort of system of ethnic nepotism has formed in humans, which of course would to things such nationalism and xenophobia.

On a slightly simialar note Trevor Phillips from CRE has claimed ethnic diversity makes people less happy.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/5012478.stm

bonkey

Saint Something wrote:

FYI - This is the reply that my uncle sent back... fair enough I think.......

If you think so. I found it to be more-or-less what I expected....

those who came previously learnt how to speak english or they cope with it , lived by our laws, worked hard and prospered

The implication of this is that those coming today are not ever going to learn english, do not obey the laws, do not work hard.
How are tehse immigrants taking American jobs if htey can't speak the language and don't work hard? Or maybe they're not taking American jobs...they're just all criminals and/or unemployed?

Fair comment, I think not.

our liberal politations have seem to feel that everything we do, drivers lisense appl., social assistance etc should be spelled out in each persons native language rather than English.

Sounds to me like he's been listening to someone like Anne Coulter tell him what the liberal politicians are up to, rather than actually finding out for himself. While there are undoubtedly some who are as extreme as the author is suggesting, it is unreasonable to suggest that this is anything more than fringe extremism. Its a typical, flawed, "there's only two sides" type of argument.

plus it seems that many people who enter the country have more rights and benifits than people who lived here all their lives....again our own politations

It might indeed seem that way, but what is the reality?

Shouldn't we base our objections on what is rather than what appears to be???

they all wanted to be Americans 1st with their proud national heritage in the background.

Untrue. They wanted to live in America and gain from what that offered....which is pretty much what today's immgrants want to do as well.

Some no doubt wanted to become Americans, or wanted their children to become American. But if they all wanted to be American's first, then what the hell are all these Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. doing around the place, generations after the immigrants settled? And why were these "national heritage in the background" immigrants in the past every bit (if not more) victimised, opposed, etc. for where they came from and for who they were?

Now, it may be true that several generations after immigration, most American-born consider themselves Americans with a foreign heritage....and thats fine as long as you don't expect new-arrival immigrants and secondos to fit a cultural model faster than your own immigrant ancestors took. But anyone who believes that once an Irishman, a Chinaman, an Italian, a Pole or other all stepped off the boat they became firstly and foremostly American in their own minds is just kidding themselves.

We also have an issue here with our politations concerning God

Neat. After going on about how its unacceptable that immigrants no longer are willing to "live by our laws", the author then turns around and attacks one of those very laws because he feels its wrong that he should have to live under it.

OK off my high horse........

Thank goodness. I was worried he'd fall and hurt himself.

tallus

w66w66 wrote:

w66w66 wrote:

Considering how universal these traits such as xenophobia are in humans, and how prevalent issues such as ethnic conflict and ethnic segregation are, it would seem more logical to suggest it's innate. Also from a genetic perspective, if anyone's every read any of Pierre L. van den Berghe or William D Hamilton's works you would see that it’s very probable that some sort of system of ethnic nepotism has formed in humans, which of course would to things such nationalism and xenophobia.

On a slightly simialar note Trevor Phillips from CRE has claimed ethnic diversity makes people less happy.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/5012478.stm

So you're saying people are born racist/xenophobic?

bonkey

w66w66 wrote:

Considering how universal these traits such as xenophobia are in humans,

What evidence is there to suggest these traits are universal?

Note - universal would sugegst, for example, that when we have found isolated, comparatively primitive human cultures in the depths of Indonesia etc. our experience would uniformly be that they fear and mistrust everyone who comes into contact with them. This is simply not the case.

There is initial wariness, as there always is in the meeting of cultures, but there is little (if any) evidence of an underlying fundamental fear of all that is different.

Universal would also suggest that it would require something along the lines of a genetic mutation for any individiauls of differing ethnic origin to not experience this xenophobia.

Personally, I doubt there is any such evidence.

jc

Ayla

Quick question...

Saint Something, have you given your Uncle the link to this forum?

Seems a bit unfair to be taking his email (and subsequent responses), posting them here to the wolves and not giving him a chance to defend his own positions.

tallus

So we're wolves are we

Ayla

I meant 'wolves' actually as a compliment...it's nice to participate in a conversation where people are able to express themselves and justify their opinions in a logical and intelligent way.

With that in mind, however, maybe we should all go back to the original email that got us all going. Read it over again, and see how many of our points the author of the email's making. He/she may be a bit extreme in some of his/her opinions, but some of the fundamental statements he/she are making are correct.

1). America's policies were originally written by Christian Founding Fathers.
2). The official language of the US is English (although if you look in history it came surprisingly close to being French)
3). The American constitution does give everyone the right to practice and live as they choose, as long as they do so peacefully.

This is where it gets a bit sticky, though, because then the author implies that he/she has more constitutional rights than others. His/her beliefs are more important, just because they line up with what the Founding Fathers believed in. But at no time did the Fathers imply that Christianity was to be the only religion, or English the only language. They knew that diversity was imbedded in American culture, and only by living with it, and learning from it, could the nation prosper.

Perhaps the Fathers couldn't have forseen the way in which diversity would become such a thing in the 21st century. In their time, it wasn't a big deal to have different neighborhoods and different rules for same, because the neighborhoods didn't always have to interact. Now, in the modern world of technology and transportation, suddenly we're all in each other's backyards.

So, yes, we're all having to adapt. It's the ongoing immigration that bringing it to everyone's attention, but the fact is that it's been an ongoing process since the beginning of American (and every nation's) history.

The main question, which I think this whole forum may boil down to, is how do we do this adaptation so everyone's as happy as possible? Of course there will be sacrifices, it's impossible otherwise, but what compromise can we all ultimately make (and is it humanly possible to imagine that the compromise can/will be made)?

w66w66

bonkey wrote:

What evidence is there to suggest these traits are universal?

jc

By universal I mean it's prevalent all over the world, meaning it's not limited to particular nations or people's, which if it was it would support the nurture agrument. for example if one was to randomally pick 5 countries from each continent, you'd be almost guarnteed to find examples of ethnocentric behaviour in these in countries.

johnthesavage

Ayla wrote:

1). America's policies were originally written by Christian Founding Fathers.

Actually quite the opposite is true. The Founding Fathers believed very much in the separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson wrote "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

During George Washington's presidency a treaty between the USA and the Islamic State of Tripoli (Libya) was written. It was finally ratified by Congress and signed by the 2nd US president John Adams. One of the articles in this treaty states:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

bonkey

w66w66 wrote:

By universal I mean it's prevalent all over the world, meaning it's not limited to particular nations or people's, which if it was it would support the nurture agrument.

The nurture argument does not necessarily imply that one will encounter differences from country to country, or that traits will only exist in some countries.

It is not enough to say "we see this to some extent in all countries" to establish a non-societal origin.

for example if one was to randomally pick 5 countries from each continent, you'd be almost guarnteed to find examples of ethnocentric behaviour in these in countries.

Ethnocentric behaviour requires ethnicity which is itself a manifestation of the forming of communities. Arguably, one could say that this is a product of a genetic trait, if one could establish that the forming of communities was a genetic trait, and not simply a maximisation strategy.

Once that was done, you'd then have to go further and show that xenophobia is not simply an extension of ethnocentric behaviour, but also encompassed some identifiable genetic traits which were not shared by non-xenophobic ethnocentrics.

Basically, the level of proof required to show that something is genetic rather than societal is far greater than saying "well, you can see a bit of it everywhere you look", which is effectively what you've requalified the basis of your claim to be.

Velvet Vocals

Ayla wrote:

Quick question...

Saint Something, have you given your Uncle the link to this forum?

Seems a bit unfair to be taking his email (and subsequent responses), posting them here to the wolves and not giving him a chance to defend his own positions.

I was just thinking about that..... No I haven't and I'm starting to feel guilty! I mean I'd hate for him to think I thought badly of him... coz I don't!!!!! I just thought the email was thought provoking. Besides he did say him self that he only agreed with a few lines in the mail.
Is that a bad thing... to post up someones view without telling them.... ok don't answer that... I know it is. Right, I'll tell him so and give him the oppertunity to reply if he wants.:o

Ayla

johnthesavage wrote:

Actually quite the opposite is true. The Founding Fathers believed very much in the separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson wrote "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

During George Washington's presidency a treaty between the USA and the Islamic State of Tripoli (Libya) was written. It was finally ratified by Congress and signed by the 2nd US president John Adams. One of the articles in this treaty states:

I completely agree...the Founding Fathers did make quite the point that there was to be a separation of church and state. I never said otherwise. But the point remains that the Fathers were personally Christian (not Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, etc).

But, as you'll see in my initial points, the Fathers were quite radical in that they truly believed that diversity was a part of American culture. They made the conscious decision to not incorporate religion (or other cultural beliefs) into the political making of US policy. This is an important distinction in realizing why America has evolved to be a cultural "salad bowl"

bonkey

Ayla wrote:

a conversation where people are able to express themselves and justify their opinions in a logical and intelligent way.

/me looks guilty.

Right. No more sarcasm then...

but some of the fundamental statements he/she are making are correct.

Yes, but the conclusions are flawed because they ignore other fundamental statements which are themselves correct and/or draw invalid conclusions from these facts.

His/her beliefs are more important, just because they line up with what the Founding Fathers believed in.

You mean because he believes they line up with what the FFs believed in, when in fact (as you point out) its an incomplete alignment, because he doesn't take into consideration the areas where they differed (He, like them, is Christian. They, unlike him, did not necessarily believe the US was to be a Christian nation)

Perhaps the Fathers couldn't have forseen the way in which diversity would become such a thing in the 21st century.

Indirectly, they most certainly did. Thats why they made sure the public had the possibility to change the Constitution. Of course, there are many on all sides who cannot seem to understand the subtelty of this point. The FFs recognised that what was right for them was neither perfect nor would be right for all time. So harking back to the nation they allegedly wanted to found should entail recognising a nation which is dynamic and which can change its rules and composition with the times...not simply saying that we should have what they (allegedly) wanted to have all those years ago.

For someone fighting immigration, I would argue that the possibility of Constitutional Change means that the FFs wanted us to decide for ourselves what was right in our time, rather than slavishly following their wishes. Thus, it is what the majority wish for today that is relevant.

The reason I don't think they do this is because ultiamtely I don't think they'd ever amass a majority on an anti-immigration / anti-immigrant platform. That, or they just don't get it in the first place.

The main question, which I think this whole forum may boil down to, is how do we do this adaptation so everyone's as happy as possible? Of course there will be sacrifices, it's impossible otherwise, but what compromise can we all ultimately make (and is it humanly possible to imagine that the compromise can/will be made)?

Sacrifices. You hit the nail on the head, and there's your answer. We all have to make sacrifices. Unfortunately, there's too few people willnig to do that. People are willing to make allowances...basically to accept change as long as it doesn't cost anything. But as soon as someone feels they are losing out....they begin to argue that we've given too much.

This is what we need to overcome. We need to stop simply tolerating and making allowances, and start making sacrifices. We, in this sense, means native and immigrant alike.

jc

Ayla

Bonkey...

All of it, well said. The sacrifices vs. allowances argument is exactly what we're facing.

metrovelvet

johnthesavage wrote:

Actually quite the opposite is true. The Founding Fathers believed very much in the separation of church and state. T:

Separation of church and state are part and parcel of US policy. So, no the opposite is not true.

metrovelvet

bonkey wrote:

Now, it may be true that several generations after immigration, most American-born consider themselves Americans with a foreign heritage....and thats fine as long as you don't expect new-arrival immigrants and secondos to fit a cultural model faster than your own immigrant ancestors took. But anyone who believes that once an Irishman, a Chinaman, an Italian, a Pole or other all stepped off the boat they became firstly and foremostly American in their own minds is just kidding themselves. .

No, but once they go through naturalisation and become citizens they are Americans. If they dont in their own minds its because they are still carrying the European monolithic paradigm of identity and havent adopted the American one yet. I suspect that you are working with the European paradigm here too??

And I have yet to come across a secondo who doesnt call themselves American. And no one would take them seriously if they called themselves anything but. [Hyphenations still mean American!!!!!.]

It is ever evolving. Little Italy is shrinking because we dont have tons Italian immigration anymore. And everyday Chinatown takes more and more of what was once Little Italy. Meanwhile there are all these chinese and chinese american guys who are into hip hop, walking around with their Ipods and a tilted baseball hat dancing to songs about booty. [shrug]. This is adaption. We are all Americans.

johnthesavage

Ayla wrote:

I completely agree...the Founding Fathers did make quite the point that there was to be a separation of church and state. I never said otherwise. But the point remains that the Fathers were personally Christian

Actually that's not true either, at least the more well known of the FF's did not consider themselves Christian at all.

George Washington hardly ever attended a church, and seldom wrote or spoke about religion except to affirm that every man should worship according to his own conscience.
Thomas Paine did not believe in any organised religion, and wrote:

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."

Thomas Jefferson believed in science and reason, he did not believe in Jesus and considered Christianity to be superstition.
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and James Madison were not christian either, by any stretch of the imagination.

metrovelvet wrote:

This is adaption. We are all Americans.

Exactly, just as Irish people do not call themselves Viking-Irish or Huguenot-Irish.

metrovelvet

Look, you have to understand something. In immigrant cities, such as NYC where there are tremendous populations 12 million or so, so prefixing American by ones immediate heritage, is simply a more efficient way to carry on a dialogue or relate to each others histories.

Thats all. I dont know why people make a big deal out of it. Irish people dont do YET because practically it hasnt been necessary.

bonkey

metrovelvet wrote:

No, but once they go through naturalisation and become citizens they are Americans.

Legally, yes. However, if you look back at what the OP was complaining about, it wasn't the legal status of people, but rather the cultural baggage they bring with them.

If they dont in their own minds its because they are still carrying the European monolithic paradigm of identity and havent adopted the American one yet.

Well, other than the false implication that we're only talknig about Europeans, I'd generally agree with you. (I did, after all, refer quote often to the Chinese immigrants, and I'm pretty sure their cultural identity has nothing to do with a European paradigm.)

The point I was making is that this is no different today then it was in the 19th and 18th centuries. The immigrants who came then faced the same "identity paradigm" and were no quicker as a group to embrace Americanness than today's immigrants are. And yet, we have no shortage of today's Americans complaining that this long-established trend is something new and unacceptable, that today's immigrants need to give up their heritage quickly because its what the US is about.

Almost without exception, you take any American and look at their ancestors and you'll find immigrants who did not immediately abandon their cultural heritage on entering the US. And yet these people will extrapolate that an immigrant not immediately abandoning their cultural heritage today is a bad thing for America and should leave. There's a hypocracy embedded deeply in such an argument, which is what I've been aiming at.

And I have yet to come across a secondo who doesnt call themselves American.

So you're saying that all the kids of these Mexican immigrants that the OP was complaining about....they all consider tehmselves American too, and have no cultural baggage to p1ss off the author? So from your perspective, the whole thing is a storm in a teacup really, nothing to worry about: any "non-Americannness" only exists with immigrants, as their children (the secondos) consider themselves American.

Not much, if anything, to fix then, is there? Just put up with the immigrants, and know that their kids will be on your side, defending your shared American values against their parents and the next wave of immigrants who don't fully embrace all that is USian.

Hyphenations still mean American!!!!!.

Yes. Hyphenations still means American. So does being an American citizen who believes the sourthern states should be given to Mexico, that Spanish should be a second official language and all the other things that we're talking about on this thread that the OP saw as problems with the status quo.

The point I was making, (poerhaps badly) was that this notion of previous immigrants leaving their cultural heritage behind them is a pleasant little fantasy, but little more. There is no shortage of evidence that what happened and happens in the majority of cases was and is a gradual shift from "stranger in a strange land" to "American with a foreign heritage". This shift can span generations and has often done so. And yet now, at the start of the 21st century, all of a sudden, we have an increase in the volume* of those crying about how this "slow takeup of Americanness" is ruining the nation, as though its some new threat that must be opposed. Its not new. Its an integral part of US history. Its a central aspect of what has made America the nation it is today.

This is adaption. We are all Americans.

Thing is that one of the people who doesn't want to adapt is the author of the original piece - the one claiming that immigrants and not Americans are who should have to adapt. Adapt or leave, he said, and you agreed with it.

Now you're telling me that adaption is part of the American Way and that issues of cultural identity cease by the second generation. So it would seem that there's no long-term problem with the attitudes of immigrants, and that its the author of the original piece who needs to lean the All-American trait of adapting to change.

No?

jc

* I don't believe this is a new complaint, nor one thats gaining support. I believe its an ongoing background complaint that has momentarily grabbed the spotlight.

bonkey

metrovelvet wrote:

Look, you have to understand something. In immigrant cities, such as NYC where there are tremendous populations 12 million or so, so prefixing American by ones immediate heritage, is simply a more efficient way to carry on a dialogue or relate to each others histories.

Thats all.

Really?

Personally, anynoe I've met who identifies themselves in this manner is proud of their roots. Its not just a handy means of identification, but a means to find common ground and/or show pride in one's roots. And in both cases, it is typically pride / common cause because of the persecution their ancestors suffered because of said heritage.

It may be a pride in how their peope withstood the persecution that drove them to the US, or the persecution that they faced in the US for being who they were, or some combination of the two but people hold on to heritage far more strongly when you try to discriminate against them because of it.

Look at the strongest cultural-heritage-identies in the US today, and you won't find a single one who doesn't have a past of persecution.

And there's the nub. If the author of the original piece really wanted to minimise the issues caused by foreign heritage.....he'd make a 180-degree turn and instead of proposing that we persecute people some more (thus reinforcing their pride in their heritage and their determination to hold on to it), we try something new....like ignoring or accepting their differences.

jc

johnthesavage

metrovelvet wrote:

I dont know why people make a big deal out of it. Irish people dont do YET because practically it hasnt been necessary.

I wasn't making a big deal - I meant that the cultural differences between Celts, Vikings, Normans etc.. which once existed in Ireland have disappeared over the centuries.
The same thing has been ongoing throughout American history, although the author of that email would have us believe that today's immigrants are somehow different from his own ancestors.

w66w66

bonkey wrote:

The nurture argument does not necessarily imply that one will encounter differences from country to country, or that traits will only exist in some countries.

It is not enough to say "we see this to some extent in all countries" to establish a non-societal origin.

I never argued that it debunked the nurture argument. I merely argued that more prevalent ethnocentric behaviour, historically and geographically, the more probably it was that it had genetic basis. For example some cultural traits are often considered more likely to be the result of nurture due to the fact that it is isolated to a particular area. Similar if ethnocentrism only existed in few European nations it would make it more probably that it doesn’t have genetic basis.

bonkey wrote:

Basically, the level of proof required to show that something is genetic rather than societal is far greater than saying "well, you can see a bit of it everywhere you look", which is effectively what you've requalified the basis of your claim to be.

I never at any point suggested the theory of ethnic nepotism was correct, from the onset I was making a retort to tallus’s claim that the nurture argument was more likely, I claimed it was more logical and more likely to have genetic basis. I based this claim on observations made from prevalent and accepted human traits such as nationalism, altruistic behaviour, kinship, xenophobia. I also based on it prevalence of issue’s such as ethnic segregation, and ethnic conflict. And when I say ‘ethnic’ I mean a group of people who partially inbred over a period, without any large influence on the gene pool from other ‘ethnic’ groups. I also based it on what I’ve read on William Hamilton’s work on kin selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection, Pierre van den Berghe works and various others. If one reads their arguments and theories, you can see how easily and coherently they can be used to explain the traits mentioned. Granted none of this proves the nature argument, there are many reasons why not to accept this model as fact and I never suggested it should be, but I’ve seen nothing written yet to suggest that the nurture argument is the more plausible explanation.
Also if any one's interested in this subject here's a good article on it.http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002809.html
theres a good debate on the comments page about this issue at the bottom of the article.

metrovelvet

bonkey wrote:

Really?

Personally, anynoe I've met who identifies themselves in this manner is proud of their roots. Its not just a handy means of identification, but a means to find common ground and/or show pride in one's roots. And in both cases, it is typically pride / common cause because of the persecution their ancestors suffered because of said heritage.

Maybe those are just the ones you met? I am Irish American - and its just a label to me -one that is put on me due to my in your face obnoxiously Irish name. Having been educated with and by second generations of Irish and Italian Americans, as well as Hispanics - and integration often caused by Catholic School, what I have noticed is that the further back the heritage the more the longing for it and the stronger the pride in it. The common denominator is persecution of one form or another, at least up until recently, though for one generation it may be the famine, or fascist Italy, whereas for another it may be the chronic umemployment of Ireland in the 1980s. So, yes in one sense you are right, we share a sense of survivorship. Legacy is an American preoccipation and is haunted by it. Let me add that 911 changed a lot of attitudes about our identity. The one time it gets to me is Ellis Island, where I see a blatant underrepresentation of Irish immigration in their displays. And yes, the displays and showcases of the history of immigration get to me on a very personal and emotive level, big sap that I am.

bonkey wrote:

Look at the strongest cultural-heritage-identies in the US today, and you won't find a single one who doesn't have a past of persecution. .

Well people used to only immigrate out of desperation. When you consider that up until very recently if you left your homeland there was a good chance youd never see it again, things had to be pretty bad to leave.

bonkey wrote:

And there's the nub. If the author of the original piece really wanted to minimise the issues caused by foreign heritage.....he'd make a 180-degree turn and instead of proposing that we persecute people some more (thus reinforcing their pride in their heritage and their determination to hold on to it), we try something new....like ignoring or accepting their differences.

jc

Except that some of the things they want to bring with them are persecuting in themselves. I think there are many children of these immigrants who would be relieved if they could leave some of their parents BS behind. Could you imagine if Irish immigrants started demanding a four year separation requirement pre-divorce or if pre 1990s they wanted the US to make birth control illegal like it was in the old country? Eh, no. You left for a reason, remember why!

Munya

Dudess wrote:

That's assimilation, the favoured approach in France, which has led to marginalisation, resentment and, recently, violent riots.

My uncle isn't even second-generation - he emigrated to the States in the 70s. And he doesn't like "the Jews" because they "control everything". I wonder if it has ever occurred to him and others like him that many would be of the view that white Christians "control everything".

I like the big new word you've given me

Yes from what I have observed most Americans believe America is controlled by old rich white Christians males.

r3nu4l

layke wrote:

Go to the UK and see how banks are not allowed to display a picture of a pig anymore because it offends Muslims.

Not true at all! There is nothing to stop banks displaying pigs. Just because a group complained didn't mean they were listened to.

See the attached picture

bonkey

metrovelvet wrote:

Except that some of the things they want to bring with them are persecuting in themselves.

Indeed.

I should point out that I've never once suggested once that everything "they" want to bring in should be allowed. Instead, I've suggested that I believe the "we shouldn't have to make allowances, its our country" approach is wrong.

There is a significant difference.

Incidentally, I would also argue that it is equally true that some of the things immigrants complain about are aspects of our system which facilitate persecution of the immigrants. Would it not be somewhat inconsistent to be saying that we should address the persecutions they would bring with them, but our persecutions are ours so we don't need to worry about them? If not, then aren't we in effect saying that if we persecute you for who you are, thats fine, but if you do it to others amongst yourselves or to us, its wrong?

metrovelvet

bonkey - can you give an example?

Incidentally, I would also argue that it is equally true that some of the things immigrants complain about are aspects of our system which facilitate persecution of the immigrants