Monoculturalism is Good Part II…
A sense of identity is one of the greatest benefits a nation offers its citizenry and in return the citizenry strengthens the nation . In America it used to mean that “Coming to America was about Becoming an American”
The immigration fiasco that the USA is experiencing is another great example of how multiculturalism is killing us. Multiculturalism has as a primary tenet the concept of assimilation. That the thought of requiring/expecting people to become part of the culture in their new country is somehow bad. The one world Socialists parade the false prophecy that assimilation is somehow relative to stealing peoples culture and forcing them to forget who they are. This is BS and any one with any sense knows it.
America used to be called the “Melting Pot” 
Let’s break it down for you…Melting…Become liquefied. Pot…A container in which you prepare things.
So off the literal and on to America. America has always been a great dish . A dish that begets it’s greatness from the total of the ingredients. Those great blended and united ingredients. America is on the way to a hellish cafeteria that will destroy it.
I want the Melting Pot back. I don’t care what country you hail from. If you choose to come to America and choose to stay , work and live YOU NEED TO BECOME A CITIZEN.
You want to work here 20 years sending money home every month and then go home ? Don’t bother coming in the first place. America isn’t a convenience center . It is a country which owes the best to its citizens. It isn’t an ATM that you come to and just make withdrawals. What makes America great is when its citizens give/ share of themselves.
Is that too harsh ? If you think so get out ! The people that think America should become the only country on the planet to deny borders, forsake its sovereignty and ignore its laws need to shut up and move.Those people who want the charm of a separatist homeland should try Quebec.
The greatness of America is that regardless of where you’re from you can be an American.
14 Responses to “Monoculturalism is Good Part II…”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - November 30, 2007
Now that was well said.
Good post. Americans SHOULD be Americans. People always argue that America has always been a country of immigrants and want to know why we’re getting pissed about it now… But they fail to realize that immigrants in past decades (or past centuries) came here TO BE AMERICANS. They didn’t come here to colonize and maintain their old ways of life. They came here to be part of what America was and what it stands for.
That is not what we see today. Today people come here to take advantage of what America has to offer, not to actually be a part of this country. I’m sure that they would be more than happy to up and leave if they could keep the benefits. They have no pride or loyalty to this country…
I agree with the post and comments. However, I think they are missing a key ingredient. Previous immigrants were from Europe (remember, the exception doesn’t prove the rule). Hence, they were White (Spanish for example is “White” African, Indian and Chinese isn’t) and Christian. The common racial and religious heritage made assimilation only a matter of “culture.” Nowadays, we simply expect too much. In the old days we kept Africans separate, because they were a different race and in Europe they kept Jews separate, because they were a different religion (albeit with common roots, perhaps like Islam in that regard).
Ghettos provided functional and permanent multiculturalism and/or a stepping stone for European Christians to assimilate; integration destroys cultures (and neighborhoods). It leaves behind post-modernist crap.
Naturally, a religiously homogeneous Europe incorporated brands of Christianity that were functionally atheistic/agnostic, but culturally Christian.
So, it seems to me that Africans, Jews, Muslims and Orientals belong in permanent ghettos, while Mexicans belong in temporary ones. Perhaps that seems harsh, but it does seem practical and not at all vicious. Certainly, a country without a racial and religious identity will be too weak to maintain a cultural one.
@ Westward : That’s a pretty unsavory comment. First of all ghettos in America are secondary to socio-economic standing. throughout history said ghettos/slums have been home to the latest immigrant population. The common bond you speak of didn’t always work. American history shows that at any given time under a given circumstance the “common” elements would turn on others for the benefit of themselves. Racist attitudes applied to skin color or triggered by language differences or even religion was and is a standard divider of those that should be united.
The segregated community you term ghettos are when by choice of the population beneficial in many ways. little Italy or Chinatown have positive impacts to the larger community as well as allowing people to remain comfortable. When a community is forced to be segregated you breed the inevitable extremism seen in the past and today.
I wouldn’t call it harsh. I’d call it ignorant. Purposefully accepting that you (a nation) should foster a perpetual underclass will totally destroy a nation.The identity of a nation is best maintained with freedom.
“When a community is forced to be segregated you breed the inevitable extremism seen in the past and today.”
Yeah, thats why Muslims blow themselves up, they are “forced” to be segregated. Whats the excuse for other communities that are segregated not blowing themselves up? The common denomiator will always be ISLAM.
Take a deeeeep breath will ya ? I understand you have a passion re: Islam. I read your comments and in most cases follow up on them entering into a little dialog. This post was about the US and immigration. Forcing, and that’s key,forcing a community into segregation causes a huge problem. Think about some riots in US history, they have in many cases a common theme. An isolated group lashes out. I’m not saying I agree with or accept the violence. I’m saying I understand why it happens.
You will see Muslim riots soon enough just like in Europe. Most likely in the Dearbornistan region. You know, the same place that marches for Hezbollah and uses public money for Muslim footbaths.
in2thefray: “Westward : That’s a pretty unsavory comment.”
I think that is your modern sensibilities talking; for 99.999..% of human history and all of Biblical history that comment would have been considered “savory” or non-offensive. Reality is not relative; consensus does not = reality and tradition is authoritative (usually correct). So, the odds of being correct are overwhelmingly in my favor. You have a spiteful, greedy and corrupt mass media and public educational system in your corner. lol So, the odds of you being incorrect are stunning! In other words, it is “impossible” that you are right and I am wrong (stating a logical conclusion does not = arrogance). Of course, you’ve got Big Brother and Sister in your corner. So, your comment is intimidating.
As to the rest of your argument, you make several points (alleged injustices, historical oppression assumed to be always wrong and a sort of lopsided view of history) which would take too long to respond to. So, I will respond to what appears to be your final point: underclasses destroy nations and any restriction on freedom that are based on race or religion will destroy/weaken a nation’s identity.
History refutes the first and second legs of your final point: America became great with an underclass of Africans and Europe outpaced the world with an underclass of Jews. Their freedoms were restricted in regards to race and religion. Yet, America and Europe prospered and had a much stronger identity than they do today.
One we don’t live in biblical times,times which for the most part equaled tyranny. The Bible is full of insights on oppression,classism and ethnic strife. That was a reality.History in your books may be on your side but actual history is on mine. i don’t quite get the twist you are working on. It sounded nice but amounts to rambling in the end. As for “the rest of my argument”. I made inferences to real historical events that would truly be too many to list.A good example would be the second &third class citizen mentality as Irish immigrants arrived,especially in places like New Orleans. As far as your last point to my last point. The country did not become strong from an underclass if you referring to slavery in America. The industrial North lead the way to Americas prosperity. The underclass concept shouldn’t be confused with a working class. Perhaps we’re having a misunderstanding in definitions as opposed to views. Europe’s Jews ran the gambit from low class to business owner/bankers so I don’t agree with the thought that the underclass was a benefit then or now to Europe.There’s part of me that thinks in person with facial expressions etc. and more time our discussion would be interesting. The impersonal short term manner that the net allows has it’s disadvantages. thanks for stopping by.
in2thefray said, “i don’t quite get the twist you are working on. It sounded nice but amounts to rambling in the end.”
I know this may come as a shock to you, but I think this comment is little more than a simple projection (a form of denial). When someone descends into that kind of thinking it is usually a signal that they want the conversation to end or “go away.”
O.K. if you say so.
in2thefray said, “O.K. if you say so.”
I haven’t changed my mind.
You called my post “unsavory.” Unsavory is synonymous with offensive. Something offensive is wrong or bad. So, you judged my post as morally bad. Moral offenses deserve to be punished. Big Brothers and Sisters punish little brothers and sisters if they do something bad. That is the analogy Orwell was using and so was I. Today our society punishes people who violate our “rules” about correct speech in regards to race and religion. Don Imus and Mel Gibson are recent examples of that social control mechanism “punishing” offenders. If elite men like them can be punished how much more so can ordinary people.
So, when you call someone’s comment offensive you are threatening them with a very powerful social control mechanism; you are intimidating them (even if you/they deny it).