Multicultural Madness

Samuel P. Huntington is a distinguished professor of government at Harvard, best known for his influential treatise, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. His latest book is entitled Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity. What about Canada? Are there any challenges to our national identity? Prime Minister Paul Martin thinks not. He relishes the image of Canada as a diverse multicultural mosaic. In his Canada Day address, he assured us that, "Our pride in our cultural diversity … is second to no other."

Many Canadians agree. They commend Canada for fostering multiculturalism, while contemning the United States for consigning immigrants to a culture-destroying melting pot.

In Huntington's opinion, this image of the United States as a cultural monolith is inaccurate. He contends that the process of assimilating immigrants has broken down no less decisively in the United States than in Canada.

Prior to the 1960s, almost all children born of non-English-speaking immigrants to the United States learned to speak fluent English, integrated into the predominant culture of the United States and often married outside the ethnic group of their parents. By the third generation, most descendants retained little more than a sentimental regard for the language and culture of their grandparents.

Much the same used to be true of Canada: By the third generation, most immigrants had thoroughly assimilated into either English- or French-speaking Canada. As late as 1963, prime minister Lester Pearson appointed the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism -- a name that still accurately reflected the cultural duality of Canada.

Huntington points out that in the United States, the assimilation of immigrants has failed most decisively within concentrated communities of Cuban and Mexican Americans in the southern states. In Miami, for example, Spanish is now the language spoken in most homes. In 1998, a Spanish-language television station in Miami became the first foreign-language station to achieve the highest viewer rating in any major city of the United States.

Huntington also notes that, "Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, seem slow to assimilate compared to other post-1965 groups." As evidence, he cites a number of studies, including a poll that asked American-born Muslims in Los Angeles whether they had, "closer ties or loyalty to Islamic countries or the United States." Nineteen per cent chose Islamic countries; 28 per cent said about the same; only 38 per cent gave primary loyalty to the United States.

Former president Bill Clinton has no qualms about multiculturalism. In a 1997 address, he suggested that in addition to the American revolution and the civil rights revolution, the United States now needs a third "great revolution" to "prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture."

Huntington is skeptical. Citing a wealth of polling data, he demonstrates that despite expanding pockets of unassimilated immigrants, the United States still retains a core culture bequeathed by the 17th and 18th century settlers. That core elements of that culture include, "the Christian religion, Protestant values and moralism, a work ethic, the English language, British traditions of law, justice and the limits of government power, and a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy and music."

Huntington concedes that the United States is losing this core culture and could soon become, as Clinton hopes, a genuinely multicultural society. In Canada, of course, the process is much further advanced. According to the United Nations, 44 per cent of Torontonians are foreign born.

What are the federal and provincial governments doing to inculcate in immigrants, not to mentions native-born Canadians, an abiding respect for the British traditions of law, justice and constitutional government that also animated our Fathers of Confederation? Precious little.

Huntington warns that if the United States were to lose its core culture, "America could soon evolve into a loose confederation of ethnic, racial, cultural, and political groups, with little or nothing in common apart from their location in the territory of what had been the United States of America. This could resemble the collections of diverse groups that once constituted the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires."

None of these empires was democratic. They were all strife-torn autocracies. They all collapsed in violence. What fate awaits the United States and Canada?

Rory Leishman

Same thing on both sides of the border - just a bit more "advanced" in Canada: liberal politicos selling out traditional values to buy votes from new comers via publicly funded anti-assimulation lobbies of their own creation.

As if numerous African countries and the former Yugoslavia weren't proof enough: multiculturalism is simply tribalism with all the negative implications that term implies.

Clinton suggested that...the United States now needs a third "great revolution" to "prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture."

I'm gonna go ahead and predict that this revolution happens sometime around November.

2 posted on 7/20/2004, 3:16:48 PM by ICX (To think that all problems could be solved if people behaved responsibly is irresponsible!)

Canada is the old world model. The Eurinals have whole countries where the included tribes have their own interests, languages and satutary levels of power. We abandoned that approach when we discard King George (and the losers fled to Canada). It is the classic old world-America dispute, do you look backward or do you look forward; are you limited by what you were born into or can you move anywhere in society?

Those in America that encourage cultural insularity are actively working for the destruction of our culture. Every difference creates a friction which leads to a dispute.

"America could soon evolve into a loose confederation of ethnic, racial, cultural, and political groups, with little or nothing in common apart from their location in the territory of what had been the United States of America"

We're well on our way right now.

...while contemning the United States for consigning immigrants to a culture-destroying melting pot.

Well, they could just stay home.

"prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture."

But we can't live without an American culture. What multiculturalists seem to want is a nation where the only thing people have in common is geographic proximity. In the long-term, this is a recipe for disaster.

"... And without the Mongolians we wouldn't have Mongolian barbeque. And where would we be then?" (/sarcasm off)

It's true that we can live without an European-based culture.

It's also true that European-based cultures are the overwhelming choice for everyone fleeing the brutality of non-Western countries.

In the real world, everyone wants the benefits of Western Culture, however, very few of the people from elsewhere want to work for it.

That's the problem.

We could fix it with assimilation, but that's too close to dominion.
Can't have folks feeling bad about their substandard cultures, far better to sink to their level.

The last paragraph says it all. No multicultural country in history has ever survived long except under either authoritarian or totalitarian rule - eventuallty collapsing. The stresses in the USA are already apparent. What are racial quotas, sensitivity training, and anti-hate-speech laws but creeping authoritarian efforts to keep a lid on a pot slowly coming to boil?

Why is it when anti-illegal immigration Freepers say this, we are scorned?

12 posted on 7/20/2004, 9:58:15 PM by swampfox98 (We are at war! We have been at war since 9/11. How smart do you have to be to understand this?)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.