Multiculturalists: The Pocahontases and Melinches of Our Time

This past Friday, in another defeat, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton dismissed Arizona’s counter- lawsuit against the Obama administration.  In that lawsuit, Governor Jan Brewer accused the Obama government of failing to maintain control of Arizona’s border with Mexico by not enforcing federal immigration laws.  This was an attempt to undo previous decisions by Judge Susan Bolton that blocked the state’s attempt to control illegal immigration within its borders.   

This decision and similar actions against Alabama’s immigration laws seem to re-affirm the open border thinking that the federal government currently holds.  As President Obama is so fond of saying, “We are not defined by our borders.” 

I am sure that whoever came up with the slogan is patting himself on his back for being so original, so enlightened, so avant garde.  It sounds so appropriate for the post-nationalist world.  After all, we are all “citizens of the world” now.  We are now a multicultural society; no longer tied to such outdated, outmoded ideas such as borders, national identities, and sovereignty.  In other words, we are defined by…? Well, I do not know what they think we are defined by but, whatever it is, it must be better since it is considered progress by those who profess to know more than we do.

Unfortunately, for President Obama, this is not new, enlightened, nor avant garde. It has been done before.  Not only in the world, but also in what would become the United States. What needs to be understood is that the indigenous people along the Atlantic coast unknowingly took the same approach when the Europeans started arriving.  I say unknowingly because, unlike the people of today, they did not have the concept of landownership or national sovereignty; therefore they had no concept of borders.  This is a shame because if they had then maybe they could have avoided four long centuries of suffering. But history is history and cannot be changed.

What history can do, though, is to provide lessons. One of those lessons is that nothing decent comes to a country that does not value its sovereignty.  In most cases, the results have been disastrous for the established culture and society.  Along with the indigenous peoples of North America we can add the Meso-Americans of Mexico, the Incas of Peru, the Aborigines of Australia and New Zealand, the Indians of India, the Pampa Indians of Argentina, and the inhabitants of just about all of Africa. In all these cases, the multicultural, open-border approach ended with the original inhabitants losing their cultural identities and forced off their lands, enslaved, or even exterminated. It was not uncommon for many of these cultures to endure all of the above at the hands of the newcomers.

I know some are thinking, “The newcomers where from the great European imperialist powers. The indigenous people were kind and loving people who were one with the earth and everyone in it. There was no way they could have defended themselves from such aggressive and barbaric people like the Europeans. Besides, we are a more advanced and enlightened society. That could never happen today. This is the reason multiculturalism now works.”

 Unfortunately, this is totally inaccurate and is dangerous to believe. First of all, the dominant European countries did not have colonies because they were powerful. They became powerful because of they had colonies. They did not do D-Day style amphibious assaults on the beaches. They arrived in small groups of explorers and settlers.  (In 1620, only 120 colonists, 40% women and children, established The Plymouth Rock colony). Contrarily, the indigenous populations significantly outnumbered the Europeans and were perfectly capable of eliminating the settlements. Additionally, the cultures of these people were often warrior based and fully capable of defending themselves from the newcomers. In the case of the Aztecs, their civilization rivaled that of Rome and Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs’ principle city, was larger than London was. Technology wise, both were about equal. Although the Europeans did have firearms they were extremely inaccurate, lacked range, and took time to reload. The typical soldier would get one shot off before resorting to his sword.  On the other hand, a skilled warrior could launch multiple arrows within a short amount of time.

 What did allow the Europeans to gain a foothold and then control was that they had help from people like Pocahontas and Malinche (a native woman who helped Cortez in his conquest of the Aztecs). These people helped to convince the indigenous leaders and people that the new arrivals were not a threat. That, by bringing new knowledge, the newcomers would add to the existing culture. These Native Multiculturalists were convincing enough that their leaders quickly established alliances with the Europeans. Contrary to the narrative that PC history teaches, it was these alliances that allowed the Europeans, whose numbers were still relatively small, to overcome the hostile, but maybe wiser, tribes and nations.

As for the last part, that today “we are too sophisticated for that to happen”, it is the most dangerous misconception (or dare I say lie) that we tell ourselves. The truth is that colonization and imperialism is going on today, albeit still in its early unorganized stages. Being in its early stages does not make it less of a threat to western civilization. It is wise to remember that only 120 colonists started the Plymouth Rock colony. The fact is that today’s colonization is occurring in a place we would not even consider possible: Europe. Like last time, it is from east to west. Unlike last time, it is not Christians from Europe, but Muslims from the Middle East. They may not be arriving on sailing ships and wearing pilgrim clothes, but it is colonization nonetheless.

As in the previous examples, the multiculturalists (modern day versions of Pocahontas and Malinche) started telling everyone that there was nothing to be afraid of; that the newcomers would bring the richness, diversity, and a cosmopolitan flair that the society lacked. Like the leaders of old, the new leaders saw an opportunity to align themselves with the newcomers and to use them to crush their opponents. So they created plans and programs to reduce the requirements that prevented or limited the influx of their new found friends. They embraced the multicultural ideology that destroyed any chance of their national character and identity to survive. Sadly, like so many self-serving leaders of history, they never realized that they were sowing the seeds of not only their demise, but also that of their country.

Today Western Europe is no longer the bastion of liberal democracy it once was. 600 years after the renaissance it is now slipping back into a dark age. This time, driven by uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalism, these once formidable freedom loving nations are turning into pseudo-Islamic states. As Sharia (Islamic Law based on Medieval principles) takes hold, well established freedoms are being eliminated…societies changed and not for the better.  This is recognized by the leaders of Germany, France, and Britain who all have claimed multiculturalism a “complete failure.” 

Remember, it took until the 1880s (about 250 years) before the Native Americans were entirely subdued. Europe has only been experiencing its colonization for about 40 years. It will be amusing to see how well the “Christian” Europeans are faring in 2260.

 The questions before us are:

·         Are we going to follow their example?

·         Are we going to let the Pocahontases and Malinches of today convince us that there is no real threat to our way of life?

·         Or are we going to let history be our guide?

  

 It may be too late for Europe, but it is not too late for America.

English Must be the Language of the United States

In this month's issue of Townhall magazine is an article on the failure of Multiculturalism. This includes not requiring immigrants to learn the language of their new country.  Since I had written on this subject in my upcoming book Liberty Inherited: The Untold Story of America's Exceptionalism I understand how harmful not having an official language is to a nation and its society.  What follows is an excerpt from my book.  Please let me know what you think. JLH

 I have always thought it interesting that Winston Churchill would name one of his greatest works The History of the English-Speaking Peoples. The book could have easily been called "The History of the English Peoples" or even "The History the English Race," which would have been perfectly acceptable when it was written in the 1930s. But Churchill, who was a famed orator and had won a Nobel peace prize for literature, understood the power of words. I believe that he chose the term “English-speaking peoples” because he understood that principles, values, and ideas must be communicated for them to have any significance. For Churchill the English language was the media by which English principles have been spread around the world. He understood that this goes beyond skin color and bloodline and directly into the hearts and minds of the recipients. Recent history proves him to be correct as countries such as India, Singapore, and Hong Kong, all of which have retained English as their language, have prospered even though the British no longer govern them.

 This does not mean that speaking another language, especially of one’s heritage, should be discouraged. On the contrary it should be encouraged but not at the expense of learning to effectively communicate in the English language. This will not only be beneficial to America but also to the individual. In regards to the Turkish population in Germany Turkish President Abdullah Gul commented, “When one doesn’t speak the language of the country in which one lives it doesn’t serve anyone, neither the person concerned, the country, nor the society.” This is especially true in for a country that is based on an idea. By not learning English individuals are limiting their ability to become Americans in their hearts and minds. This can lead to a crisis of identity in which the body is physically in one country while the heart and mind are in another. Interestingly, this identity crisis often afflicts the children of immigrants who have had difficulty adjusting to living in the new country.  As these children grow up they become susceptible to the philosophies of radicalism or extremism. Yes, it will be difficult for some immigrants to learn Englsih and a few of them will never become competent in the language. But for those who do the reward of becoming an American in body and soul will be well worth the struggle.

 To the intellectually honest observer it is clear that the individual immigrant will benefit from learning the language of his host nation.  It is equally clear that the nation suffers from a lack of one.  The national identities of most countries have evolved over hundreds, even thousands, of years.  Germany is a prime example.  It started off as a collection of tribes that spoke a common language, had similar traditions, and shared similar values.  As these tribes grew, they developed into the nation-state of modern Germany.

 America has no such foundation.  At its foundation is the simplistic, but fragile, idea of liberty.  The basis of this liberty is the Classical Liberal principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics.  Many parts of the world do not value or practice these principles.  While immigrants from those areas appreciate the life that American liberty provides, they do not have the understanding of the principles that create the liberty. This lack of understanding leaves them to be susceptible to manipulation and exploitation.  Over time, as we have seen in Europe, the culture that provided immigrants with opportunities they could only dream of in their native countries slowly disappears in the Multicultural cesspool.

 In Europe, the 40 year experiment with multiculturalism has been a complete failure.  Their national identities are almost all but lost.  In an attempt to save themselves, as the Townhall article points out, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Britain have or are considering changes to their immigration laws that will require immigrants to know or learn the language of their host countries.  If these countries, with centuries of established and solid national identities, are threatened by an immigrant class that does not learn or accept their values, what chance does America, based on nothing but values, have?