The pernicious doctrine of political correctness is one of Communist origin. Chinese Communist Chairman Mao Tse-T'ung wrote about it in his Little Red Book several decades ago, calling it "right thinking". In Communist countries, political dissidents have been sent to "mental hospitals", to get their political thinking "straightened out". What would Thomas Jefferson say to this doctrine of political correctness, were he to be alive today to witness it? In America today, threats to supplant free speech with political correctness, especially on pretext of protecting the feelings of certain demographic groups of people against all possible emotional injury, are becoming ever-more pervasive. In his book, You Can't Say That!, George Mason University law professor David Bernstein gives many examples of how individual civil liberties guaranteed us under the Bill of Rights are being rescinded by anti-discrimination laws.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." Around the inner-wall dome of the Jefferson Memorial today, we read others of his words: "I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD, ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MINDS OF MAN."
-LKM
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Friday, December 3, 2010
What Is A People?
This question is very difficult to answer with complete and total accuracy. No one single socio-political factor, standing alone, can isolate and identify any exclusive and monolithic aggregate of human beings forming a race, nation or society. On the contrary, there are several factors collectively responsible for the cohesion of such a group. Some of these factors are obligatory(sine qua non), while others are discretionary.
The first obligatory factor of social cohesion is a common language. Without a common linguistic communication system, society will not inter-act for very long. A second obligatory factor is a common set of socio-political and moral values, perhaps expressed through religious institutions and activities of one kind or another.
Racial solidarity is a discretionary factor in defining sovereign nationhood: most of the world's nations go this route, but a few--including the United States of America--do not. Several races of people had a historic hand in bringing America into its existence.
Today, however, new immigrants from all over the world collectively threaten to end the identity of the American solidarity as a single people united in a common purposiveness. This is because the new immigrants abjectly refuse to assimilate to the culture of those Americans having deep ancestral roots in American soil.
Past historic examples prove that not all who are within the national political boundaries of a country are one and the same people. Kurds of Syria, Iraq and Turkey are neither Arab nor Turk. Basques living in the Pyrenees Mountains between Spain and France are neither Spanish nor French. Tibetans living within mainland China are not Chinese.
Israel is interesting: peoples from all over the world, having lived in its many divergent countries for several centuries, have immigrated in recent decades to that country on basis of claim of kinship with the people who lived there in ancient Bible times, two thousand and more years ago. Indeed, many eyebrows would be raised, to see actual familial historic records maintained continuously without hiatus for two or more millenia, to corroborate that claim. DNA blood-type comparisons, too, are dubious at best after being away from the alleged ancestral homeland for so long. Nevertheless, the existence of a Hebrew language and a religion called Judaism, both from Bible times, is indisputably well-documented and somehow continuous today.
History is full of examples where one group of people have adopted the language and culture of other peoples at a later date--a language and culture not originally their own. For example, very few black African-Americans and American aboriginals(incorrectly called "Indians") still speak fluently as native languages the languages of their ancestors from five centuries ago and earlier. QUESTION: Who and where are the Twelve Lost Tribes of the house of Israel, referred to in the Bible book of Revelations?
As best as can be expected, a people is defined as a distinct group of human beings sharing a common language and a common socio-political structure and agenda.
Finally, what about individuals who "swim up-stream" against the collective group's socio-political norms? Where is the line to be drawn between "politically incorrect" and "criminal", in terms of threat to the integrity of the society in question? There is always a conflict between prerogatives of individuals, and those of the group in the name of social unity and cohesion. So far, tolerance of differences between individuals and their group affiliation as a whole? Can collective society benefit from "wayward" individuals who march to the cadences of a different drummer? What about great individual writers, scientists, inventors, explorers, music composers and artists? These, and not government and political officials, are the people to whom the rest of the group should look as sources of inspiration by which to define group identity.
-LKM
The first obligatory factor of social cohesion is a common language. Without a common linguistic communication system, society will not inter-act for very long. A second obligatory factor is a common set of socio-political and moral values, perhaps expressed through religious institutions and activities of one kind or another.
Racial solidarity is a discretionary factor in defining sovereign nationhood: most of the world's nations go this route, but a few--including the United States of America--do not. Several races of people had a historic hand in bringing America into its existence.
Today, however, new immigrants from all over the world collectively threaten to end the identity of the American solidarity as a single people united in a common purposiveness. This is because the new immigrants abjectly refuse to assimilate to the culture of those Americans having deep ancestral roots in American soil.
Past historic examples prove that not all who are within the national political boundaries of a country are one and the same people. Kurds of Syria, Iraq and Turkey are neither Arab nor Turk. Basques living in the Pyrenees Mountains between Spain and France are neither Spanish nor French. Tibetans living within mainland China are not Chinese.
Israel is interesting: peoples from all over the world, having lived in its many divergent countries for several centuries, have immigrated in recent decades to that country on basis of claim of kinship with the people who lived there in ancient Bible times, two thousand and more years ago. Indeed, many eyebrows would be raised, to see actual familial historic records maintained continuously without hiatus for two or more millenia, to corroborate that claim. DNA blood-type comparisons, too, are dubious at best after being away from the alleged ancestral homeland for so long. Nevertheless, the existence of a Hebrew language and a religion called Judaism, both from Bible times, is indisputably well-documented and somehow continuous today.
History is full of examples where one group of people have adopted the language and culture of other peoples at a later date--a language and culture not originally their own. For example, very few black African-Americans and American aboriginals(incorrectly called "Indians") still speak fluently as native languages the languages of their ancestors from five centuries ago and earlier. QUESTION: Who and where are the Twelve Lost Tribes of the house of Israel, referred to in the Bible book of Revelations?
As best as can be expected, a people is defined as a distinct group of human beings sharing a common language and a common socio-political structure and agenda.
Finally, what about individuals who "swim up-stream" against the collective group's socio-political norms? Where is the line to be drawn between "politically incorrect" and "criminal", in terms of threat to the integrity of the society in question? There is always a conflict between prerogatives of individuals, and those of the group in the name of social unity and cohesion. So far, tolerance of differences between individuals and their group affiliation as a whole? Can collective society benefit from "wayward" individuals who march to the cadences of a different drummer? What about great individual writers, scientists, inventors, explorers, music composers and artists? These, and not government and political officials, are the people to whom the rest of the group should look as sources of inspiration by which to define group identity.
-LKM
Monday, November 29, 2010
Christmas: Bah, Humbug?
Is Christmas, December 25, really a humbug, as Ebeneezer Scrooge said it is?
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible as to the true birth date of the Lord Jesus Christ. The date of December 25 represents a compromise between year-end Roman pagan festivities and the early Christian church. The church sought to appease Roman paganism in order to stave off intense persecution at Roman hands, by adoption of December 25 as the date of celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday.
More important is the modern role of Christianity in society. Is it just a one-day, one-time flurry of kindness and good-will in an otherwise mean-spirited and ferocious dog-eat-dog world? Or does that one special day serve as a role model for ideal interpersonal relations throughout the entire year? The true value of Christmas is decided by the extent to which we permit the spirit of Christmas Day to permeate our lives daily all year long. Do we always love our neighbors as ourselves? "I am going to raise your salary, Bob Cratchet! Put some more coal onto the fire!"
-LKM
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible as to the true birth date of the Lord Jesus Christ. The date of December 25 represents a compromise between year-end Roman pagan festivities and the early Christian church. The church sought to appease Roman paganism in order to stave off intense persecution at Roman hands, by adoption of December 25 as the date of celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday.
More important is the modern role of Christianity in society. Is it just a one-day, one-time flurry of kindness and good-will in an otherwise mean-spirited and ferocious dog-eat-dog world? Or does that one special day serve as a role model for ideal interpersonal relations throughout the entire year? The true value of Christmas is decided by the extent to which we permit the spirit of Christmas Day to permeate our lives daily all year long. Do we always love our neighbors as ourselves? "I am going to raise your salary, Bob Cratchet! Put some more coal onto the fire!"
-LKM
Sunday, November 28, 2010
LKM Epistle To The Distaff Side
In an earlier BLOG article, I quoted John Wayne a.k.a. "The Duke", to say I totally agree with his pronouncement on the role of women in our society, that they should be free to do anything they want to----as long as they have supper ready for us men when we come home from work! Also, my BLOG article concerning the limits of freedom apply equally to both sexes as per the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment. In no way should women be prevented from their pursuits of happiness, so long as by so-doing, they inflict no injuries upon the persons or properties of men.
This writer has on numerous occasions entertained the fascinating question in his mind: what if we male chauvinist pigs indeed turned over every ruling socio-political and financial institution in America over to the women--lock, stock and barrel--to run completely their way, while we male chauvinist pigs just rolled over in the mud of our pig styes and went back to sleep? Would the women of America--and even of the world--then be happy? Or, do women, at the end of the day, confess that they want--and even need--the good-old-boys' club to be around, to spice up their lives and make them interesting? This writer has doubts about any inevitable feminine felicity at the prospect of sexual segregation in our society, to the clear advantage of women. This is because women are just as individual and just as divided as men are, concerning their goals, tastes, preferences/prejudices, motives and tempraments. In total absence of men, there would be female power-and-prestige struggles of equal frequency and ferocity as those seen among men. Differences in age and generation would be a major contributor to such struggles, and intergenerational conflict knows no boundary of gender. That is because old people have within their memory vivid recollections of experiences, of which the younger have no-such recollection for similar chronological point-of-reference.
What about the issue of sexual freedom? Here again, freedom cannot be separated from individual responsibility. Whatsoever a woman may choose--be it monogamous or polygamous sexual relations--she cannot and should not expect the general public to relieve her of any adverse consequences visited upon her by her own choice of behaviour. She must pay for her own abortions and STD medical treatments--if any--as it is not the role of government to rescue people from the consequences of their own idiotic and fool-hardy choices. Government must protect people from the ferocities of one another, but not from the foolishness of themselves. I will get my hands off the woman's body if government, acting on her behalf, will get its hands out of my bank account.
Women size up men to assess their sexual desirability just as much as men do towards women. Monica did not choose Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman.")Clinton for nothing! In the Garden of Eden, Eve pulled Adam down into sin first! So, feminists in vain play the role of innocent victim here, whether or not they know, in this case, what "is" is!
What about women and military service for America? This question harks back to the issue of whether or not women are the "weaker sex", and so whether men should protect them from various evils and dangers. Feminists scoff in abject contempt at this idea as something rooted in romantic legends from days of yore, not in step with modern realities. It is they, who push so hard for equality between the sexes, for both opportunity and responsibility in the military. In such case, the military should make no categorical concessions for women, pertaining to combat training and readiness if, as feminists claim, there are no fundamental differences besides reproductive mechanism, between men and women. Equality means equality of obligation, as well as equality of priviledge. QUESTION: Would American politicians be so quick to commit America to war, if prospects were likely for equal number of both male and female dead military personnel returning home in flag-draped caskets? Are women's lives more valuable than those of men, such as to exempt them from this possible scenario? If so, why?--if equality between the sexes is the American ideal? Or, does the chivalrous male dragon-slayer rescuing the fair but helpless damsel in distress still occupy a higher level in American socio-political consciousness than mere children's story-book fables from Never-Neverland? Several foreign countries have full equality between the genders in their respective militaries, without second thought.
Some men recoil in deep resentment at the thought of having a wife earning much more money than they do. This BLOG writer, however, rejects the notion of money as the measure of a man--or of a woman. Capacity to love, in complete disregard of that financial consideration, is far more important. After all, pornography king Larry Flynt is undoubtedly among America's wealthiest citizens, but is still a slime-and-scum bag anyway!
Finally, the writer of this BLOG basically loves women and wants only the best for them. Still, oddly, he does not trust them beyond his fingernails, to love him in return. The feminist movement of the 1970s and the 1980s persuaded him to write off a priori without second thought all possibility of marriage to any fellow-American woman. Guilt-by-association, for how some other men horribly mistreat women, was also a powerful dissuader to his mind. Et tu, Brute? America's 50% national divorce rate likewise persuaded this writer not to marry in haste and repent at leisure! He freely acknowledges himself to be eons away from being adequately possessed of traits by which to commend himself to the female world, in context of the national divorce rate. Marriage was for 46 years his Mission: Impossible, but he did finally decide to accept it--hoping and praying to God he would not self-destruct later for having done so.
-LKM
This writer has on numerous occasions entertained the fascinating question in his mind: what if we male chauvinist pigs indeed turned over every ruling socio-political and financial institution in America over to the women--lock, stock and barrel--to run completely their way, while we male chauvinist pigs just rolled over in the mud of our pig styes and went back to sleep? Would the women of America--and even of the world--then be happy? Or, do women, at the end of the day, confess that they want--and even need--the good-old-boys' club to be around, to spice up their lives and make them interesting? This writer has doubts about any inevitable feminine felicity at the prospect of sexual segregation in our society, to the clear advantage of women. This is because women are just as individual and just as divided as men are, concerning their goals, tastes, preferences/prejudices, motives and tempraments. In total absence of men, there would be female power-and-prestige struggles of equal frequency and ferocity as those seen among men. Differences in age and generation would be a major contributor to such struggles, and intergenerational conflict knows no boundary of gender. That is because old people have within their memory vivid recollections of experiences, of which the younger have no-such recollection for similar chronological point-of-reference.
What about the issue of sexual freedom? Here again, freedom cannot be separated from individual responsibility. Whatsoever a woman may choose--be it monogamous or polygamous sexual relations--she cannot and should not expect the general public to relieve her of any adverse consequences visited upon her by her own choice of behaviour. She must pay for her own abortions and STD medical treatments--if any--as it is not the role of government to rescue people from the consequences of their own idiotic and fool-hardy choices. Government must protect people from the ferocities of one another, but not from the foolishness of themselves. I will get my hands off the woman's body if government, acting on her behalf, will get its hands out of my bank account.
Women size up men to assess their sexual desirability just as much as men do towards women. Monica did not choose Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman.")Clinton for nothing! In the Garden of Eden, Eve pulled Adam down into sin first! So, feminists in vain play the role of innocent victim here, whether or not they know, in this case, what "is" is!
What about women and military service for America? This question harks back to the issue of whether or not women are the "weaker sex", and so whether men should protect them from various evils and dangers. Feminists scoff in abject contempt at this idea as something rooted in romantic legends from days of yore, not in step with modern realities. It is they, who push so hard for equality between the sexes, for both opportunity and responsibility in the military. In such case, the military should make no categorical concessions for women, pertaining to combat training and readiness if, as feminists claim, there are no fundamental differences besides reproductive mechanism, between men and women. Equality means equality of obligation, as well as equality of priviledge. QUESTION: Would American politicians be so quick to commit America to war, if prospects were likely for equal number of both male and female dead military personnel returning home in flag-draped caskets? Are women's lives more valuable than those of men, such as to exempt them from this possible scenario? If so, why?--if equality between the sexes is the American ideal? Or, does the chivalrous male dragon-slayer rescuing the fair but helpless damsel in distress still occupy a higher level in American socio-political consciousness than mere children's story-book fables from Never-Neverland? Several foreign countries have full equality between the genders in their respective militaries, without second thought.
Some men recoil in deep resentment at the thought of having a wife earning much more money than they do. This BLOG writer, however, rejects the notion of money as the measure of a man--or of a woman. Capacity to love, in complete disregard of that financial consideration, is far more important. After all, pornography king Larry Flynt is undoubtedly among America's wealthiest citizens, but is still a slime-and-scum bag anyway!
Finally, the writer of this BLOG basically loves women and wants only the best for them. Still, oddly, he does not trust them beyond his fingernails, to love him in return. The feminist movement of the 1970s and the 1980s persuaded him to write off a priori without second thought all possibility of marriage to any fellow-American woman. Guilt-by-association, for how some other men horribly mistreat women, was also a powerful dissuader to his mind. Et tu, Brute? America's 50% national divorce rate likewise persuaded this writer not to marry in haste and repent at leisure! He freely acknowledges himself to be eons away from being adequately possessed of traits by which to commend himself to the female world, in context of the national divorce rate. Marriage was for 46 years his Mission: Impossible, but he did finally decide to accept it--hoping and praying to God he would not self-destruct later for having done so.
-LKM
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The Utter Futility of Christian Denominationalism
"There is none righteous; no, not one.....for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.(Romans 3:10-23)" "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.(James 2:10)"
The Bible declares with these words total human incapability to win justification to God's salvation by his/her own works and devices. Sin is sin, and so it makes no difference in the sight of God, which or how many sins we commit: committing one sin is breaking the whole law of God, even as a rock thrown to impact a glass window at just one point will smash the entire window. Certain church denominations claiming to be Christian declare only their fellow co-religionists, under the protection of their denomination, can and will be saved by virtue of their church denomination affiliation. But this notion is belied by the scripture of Luke 23:42-43, recounting the act of pardoning of sin by Jesus Christ for a criminal on a cross next to Him who, in all likelihood, had never before been to a church, temple or synagogue religious worship service a day in his life.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.(John 6:44)" Words attributed in the Bible by this scripture to Jesus Christ. Justification and salvation of man, then, is entirely the prerogative of our Lord Jesus Christ. Human contribution to it is a big zero, as man has no power to oblige God to "keep His end of the bargain" in exchange for anything men may do. It is by faith alone, and not by works--including affiliation with a "correct" church denomination, to the exclusion of all others--that God confers His divine favor upon us, "lest any man should boast.(Ephesians 2:9)"
There is no way to build any perfect church out of sinful and imperfect people.
-LKM
The Bible declares with these words total human incapability to win justification to God's salvation by his/her own works and devices. Sin is sin, and so it makes no difference in the sight of God, which or how many sins we commit: committing one sin is breaking the whole law of God, even as a rock thrown to impact a glass window at just one point will smash the entire window. Certain church denominations claiming to be Christian declare only their fellow co-religionists, under the protection of their denomination, can and will be saved by virtue of their church denomination affiliation. But this notion is belied by the scripture of Luke 23:42-43, recounting the act of pardoning of sin by Jesus Christ for a criminal on a cross next to Him who, in all likelihood, had never before been to a church, temple or synagogue religious worship service a day in his life.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.(John 6:44)" Words attributed in the Bible by this scripture to Jesus Christ. Justification and salvation of man, then, is entirely the prerogative of our Lord Jesus Christ. Human contribution to it is a big zero, as man has no power to oblige God to "keep His end of the bargain" in exchange for anything men may do. It is by faith alone, and not by works--including affiliation with a "correct" church denomination, to the exclusion of all others--that God confers His divine favor upon us, "lest any man should boast.(Ephesians 2:9)"
There is no way to build any perfect church out of sinful and imperfect people.
-LKM
Friday, October 29, 2010
Blue State/Red State--WHITE State?
The national news media has divided America into blue states(allegedly liberal) and red states(allegedly conservative). But why no white states? What is wrong with white, the third color of the American flag? Implication of politically-incorrect white racial hubris tacitly understood, perhaps?
In any case, white symbolizes purity. Contrast with either conservatism or liberalism could also be understood in this case. How about purity of the U.S. Constitution's rule of impersonal and impartial law, uncorrupted by partisan predilections of either blue liberalism or red conservatism? The U.S. Constitution is actually both: the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes once said we must abide by the U.S. Constitution when it pinches us, as well as when it comforts us. Otherwise, there is no point to governance by a national constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is like a two-edged sword: it comforts us with its liberalism as it allows us a latitude of exercise of freedom previously unknown in all human historic experience. At the same time, it pinches us with its conservatism as it places absolute demand upon us to yield to the equal legal prerogatives of other citizens, who see fit to exercise these same freedoms in ways which rub us the wrong way, and rattle our cages. Indeed, we often frown in abject disapproval upon those who dare to differ from us in the manner by which they exercise Constitutional freedoms. Yet, it is no test of the true strength of our Constitutional republic, and of our commitment to the same, if the only exercises of freedom we permit are those with which we all unanimously agree.
Without God-given, inalienable rights extended to individual citizens, there is precious little difference between democracy and mob-ocracy. Herein lies the danger of either blue-state or red-state mentality. Thomas Jefferson best expressed the case for white state consciousness by saying, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty."
-LKM
In any case, white symbolizes purity. Contrast with either conservatism or liberalism could also be understood in this case. How about purity of the U.S. Constitution's rule of impersonal and impartial law, uncorrupted by partisan predilections of either blue liberalism or red conservatism? The U.S. Constitution is actually both: the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes once said we must abide by the U.S. Constitution when it pinches us, as well as when it comforts us. Otherwise, there is no point to governance by a national constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is like a two-edged sword: it comforts us with its liberalism as it allows us a latitude of exercise of freedom previously unknown in all human historic experience. At the same time, it pinches us with its conservatism as it places absolute demand upon us to yield to the equal legal prerogatives of other citizens, who see fit to exercise these same freedoms in ways which rub us the wrong way, and rattle our cages. Indeed, we often frown in abject disapproval upon those who dare to differ from us in the manner by which they exercise Constitutional freedoms. Yet, it is no test of the true strength of our Constitutional republic, and of our commitment to the same, if the only exercises of freedom we permit are those with which we all unanimously agree.
Without God-given, inalienable rights extended to individual citizens, there is precious little difference between democracy and mob-ocracy. Herein lies the danger of either blue-state or red-state mentality. Thomas Jefferson best expressed the case for white state consciousness by saying, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty."
-LKM
Saturday, October 16, 2010
A "Dirty" Eight-Letter "N"-Word
"Breathes there the man with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, 'This is my own, my native land! Whose heart hath never within him burned, As home his footsteps he hath turned, From wandering on a foreign strand!"
These words were penned by Scottish novelist Walter Scott in 1805, in The Lady of The Last Minstrel. Today, however, in context of massive immigration to the United States, both legal and illegal, the political Left is turning the word "nativist" into an extremely politically-incorrect epithet, if not an outright obscenity. They would have those of us having several generations of ancestral rooting in American soil to apologize for our status against the onslaught of immigrant demands upon American government for political and legal concessions to their life-styles.
The writer of this BLOG acknowledges the richness of some foreign immigrant contribution to American national culture, and to American national consciousness. Nevertheless, there are also some good things to be said for long-standing nativism in any soil on earth.
Nations, complete with national cultural consciousness, are not built overnight. It is often said that "Rome was not built in a day", and this mantra refers to spiritual and social abstractions of thought, as well as to the physically-visible. It is cultural tradition which is so very necessary, to maintain the socio-political cohesion and integrity of any society over time. This is why social innovations are often not immediately welcomed by society-at-large, and why those who have the temerity to be sufficiently individualistic enough to digress from collective social norms and "swim up-stream against the crowd" often find themselves ostracized by said society, even though they might not have violated any written laws, per se. Knowing this, foreign new-comers to America will often live together in ghetto-type situations, rather than voluntarily choosing to freely associate with the previously-established native populations-at-large. The writer of this BLOG is a very enthusiastic student of foreign languages. But he knows that no matter how well he may master the words and grammars of other languages, he will never be one of the "in-crowders" who use said languages as native languages, since he learned the languages outside of cultural context.
It is those people who are heirs to the cultural values of their ancestors, who while coincidentally occupying a particular piece of terrestrial real estate, who also have the greatest degree of social cohesion and integrity by which to administer the affairs of that piece of real estate. This is because every peoples must live off of the land upon which they exist, using whatever resources that land yields to their disposition. Any invasion or intrusion by foreigners raises at least the plausibility of dislocation of long-established traditions. Given that fear of all uncertainty is a primitive and long-established human psychic phenomenon, it is understandable that those steeped in traditions fear the worst rather than the best to come with changes brought from the outside.
Tolerance must be a two-way street, between both nativists and foreign immigrants. There is the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." But this is not to say that outsiders have no wisdom or knowledge to teach to the Romans. Indeed, world history is full of examples, where one peoples have learned much over time from others. Romans learned much from the Greeks, their cultural predecessors: it is often said that while the Romans militarily conquered the Greeks, the Greeks culturally conquered the Romans. For example, the ancient Romans were a pretty stinky bunch, not knowing much about taking baths and using perfumes, until the Greeks came along to teach them these things.
In honoring the contributions of foreign immigrants to America--of which there have been many until now--the word nativist must not be a taboo word in the American vocabulary. Even the American aboriginals--incorrectly called "Indians"--would agree to that proposition. The first English settlers to the lands of present-day Virginia and Massachusetts in the 17th century, known as "Pilgrims" and "Puritans", owed their survival in the new world to education imparted to them concerning it by the long-standing natives on that soil.
-LKM
These words were penned by Scottish novelist Walter Scott in 1805, in The Lady of The Last Minstrel. Today, however, in context of massive immigration to the United States, both legal and illegal, the political Left is turning the word "nativist" into an extremely politically-incorrect epithet, if not an outright obscenity. They would have those of us having several generations of ancestral rooting in American soil to apologize for our status against the onslaught of immigrant demands upon American government for political and legal concessions to their life-styles.
The writer of this BLOG acknowledges the richness of some foreign immigrant contribution to American national culture, and to American national consciousness. Nevertheless, there are also some good things to be said for long-standing nativism in any soil on earth.
Nations, complete with national cultural consciousness, are not built overnight. It is often said that "Rome was not built in a day", and this mantra refers to spiritual and social abstractions of thought, as well as to the physically-visible. It is cultural tradition which is so very necessary, to maintain the socio-political cohesion and integrity of any society over time. This is why social innovations are often not immediately welcomed by society-at-large, and why those who have the temerity to be sufficiently individualistic enough to digress from collective social norms and "swim up-stream against the crowd" often find themselves ostracized by said society, even though they might not have violated any written laws, per se. Knowing this, foreign new-comers to America will often live together in ghetto-type situations, rather than voluntarily choosing to freely associate with the previously-established native populations-at-large. The writer of this BLOG is a very enthusiastic student of foreign languages. But he knows that no matter how well he may master the words and grammars of other languages, he will never be one of the "in-crowders" who use said languages as native languages, since he learned the languages outside of cultural context.
It is those people who are heirs to the cultural values of their ancestors, who while coincidentally occupying a particular piece of terrestrial real estate, who also have the greatest degree of social cohesion and integrity by which to administer the affairs of that piece of real estate. This is because every peoples must live off of the land upon which they exist, using whatever resources that land yields to their disposition. Any invasion or intrusion by foreigners raises at least the plausibility of dislocation of long-established traditions. Given that fear of all uncertainty is a primitive and long-established human psychic phenomenon, it is understandable that those steeped in traditions fear the worst rather than the best to come with changes brought from the outside.
Tolerance must be a two-way street, between both nativists and foreign immigrants. There is the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." But this is not to say that outsiders have no wisdom or knowledge to teach to the Romans. Indeed, world history is full of examples, where one peoples have learned much over time from others. Romans learned much from the Greeks, their cultural predecessors: it is often said that while the Romans militarily conquered the Greeks, the Greeks culturally conquered the Romans. For example, the ancient Romans were a pretty stinky bunch, not knowing much about taking baths and using perfumes, until the Greeks came along to teach them these things.
In honoring the contributions of foreign immigrants to America--of which there have been many until now--the word nativist must not be a taboo word in the American vocabulary. Even the American aboriginals--incorrectly called "Indians"--would agree to that proposition. The first English settlers to the lands of present-day Virginia and Massachusetts in the 17th century, known as "Pilgrims" and "Puritans", owed their survival in the new world to education imparted to them concerning it by the long-standing natives on that soil.
-LKM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
