"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Friday, May 19, 2006

E pluribus unum? I no longer think so.

Noting that special interest groups and hyphenation of Americans has created "an institutionalized disunity" among Americans and within the overwhelming tidal wave of aliens, in "E pluribus unum", Mark Alexander at The Patriot Post describes how this untenable and unthinkable situation came to be. He quotes Teddy Roosevelt and then goes on to explain:

How does a nation that has institutionalized ethnic disunity integrate millions of immigrants?

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words: "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here.

Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Unfortunately, the Left has spent four decades hyphenating and disenfranchising every ethnic group it can in order to create special-interest constituencies. Challenging this disunity exposes one to substantial ridicule -- claims of intolerance, bigotry and jingoism. Yet these subcultures, including immigrants, fail to become properly integrated into civil society.

We are now beginning to bear the social consequences of multicultural politicization in both American and immigrant minority populations. "Progressive" policies -- bilingual education being the worst offender -- have the effect of insulating and ultimately ghettoizing otherwise hardworking and well-intentioned immigrants. For fear of appearing "culturally imperialistic" by forcing newcomers to learn our language, history and laws, we've condemned them to permanent impoverishment.

Read it all.

It appears that many contemporary Americans would not meet Teddy Roosevelt's criteria for being an American for they care more for their racial, ethnic, or religious identity than for being an American. To them America is just an address, a place to exploit, to have a "good life". Rather than create their lives in a new mold as did the Americans of old, they have decided to recreate the old country while using the resources of the new.

I inquired of an immigrant family why they wanted American citizenship. The answers of the adults should surprise no one: we want a better life for our family. We want to be able to bring our parents and grandparents to the United States. We want to be able to vote so that "we can have our rights." Now Latinos can have their own way.

When told that rights always bring with them a responsibility to the community, to their neighbors, to the country as a whole, they were less forthcoming; their answers were ambiguous. The husband shrugged his shoulders and replied in Spanish, "No sé nada de eso," "I don't know anything about that".

Annoyed, the wife picked up her youngest child and said,"I need my mother to come soon to help with the children." Then she walked into the other room leaving me with a clear understanding of their intentions.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home