Race and Culture are not synonymous

When I was growing up my best friend was named Brad.  His father was a Nissei (a second generation American of Japanese descent) and his mother was from Japan itself.  So racially Brad was 100% Japanese. But not once did it occur to me to think of him as anything other than an American because that is what he was culturally.  He was just another kid on the street who loved baseball, rock music, skateboarding, and all the other activities American kids enjoyed at the time.  

True, there were some Japanese influences but they were never strong enough to overcome the environmental influences of being born and raised in America.  The result is that although he could physically blend in on any street in Japan, he would be the proverbial fish out of water culturally.  This was clearly demonstrated when, in university, he minored in Japanese and failed.  Of course, he had no problem in the English-based classes and graduated with high honors.

Through this and similar experiences I learned that there is a huge difference between one’s race and one’s culture.  That one is a product of nature while the other is the result of nurture.  Furthermore, at an early age, I understood that there is no inherent connection between the two.  This is clearly shown in the definition of the words.  As Webster’s College Dictionary defines them:

Race refers to a group of persons related by common 

descent or heredity 

Culture is the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another [Author’s note: usually through language] 

From these definitions it is clear that neither one has anything to do with the other.  So you can imagine my surprise (make that shock) when I see people use the words as if they have the same meaning.  For example, when the French interior minister, Claude Gueant, recently declared some “civilizations superior” to others he was called a “cultural racist” by some political groups.  The racist label is also applied to anyone who opposes multiculturalism or supports an English-only agenda.  

I myself have been called a racist because I believe that there is a distinct American culture that needs to be cherished and protected.  I take this view because I understand that America was never based on race but on ideas and culture is what holds it all together.  Remember that culture is the “sum ways of living” and “transmitted from one generation to another” and language is the primary method of transmission.  Without a common culture and common language to transmit the culture there is no America, just pockets of distinct and separate groups trying to get along with each other.  (This is the destructiveness of multiculturalism and I hope I am not around to see the end result of such nonsense bred out of ignorance.)

Of course, it is not uncommon for those with political agendas to manipulate words in order to gain support from those who do not know any better.  But recently I have been seeing this misuse of the words 'culture' and 'race' from people who should know better.   

I am currently reading Why Nations Fail by two very highly educated and knowledgeable men.   Daron Acemoglu is a Professor of Economics at MIT, while James Robinson is a Professor of Government at Harvard.  Clearly, these men should know the definitions of words like race and culture.  Yet, they confuse the two.  In chapter 2 they discuss the Culture Hypothesis on why there is economic inequality in the world.  They use several examples to illustrate that this hypothesis does not work.  One example is the fact that people of Mexican descent live and dominate both the Mexican and American sides of Nogales, a city which straddles the border.  Yet, the Mexican side is impoverished while the American side is relatively prosperous.  From this they conclude that culture plays no role in the development (or lack of development) of either side.  

By using this logic, my friend Brad should have traditional Japanese values, attitudes, and behavior.  Yet, as I explained above, since he was raised and educated in the United States—and not Japan-- he was and is culturally American.  This is the same for most of those living in the American side of Nogales.  They may look like and share many cultural similarities with their neighbors to the south but they are not the same.  Their upbringing in the United States altered them culturally, even though they may remain racially intact.

In another example, the authors use the degree that Latin American countries still have indigenous populations (race) to discredit the Cultural Hypothesis.  They highlight the fact that Colombia has a small indigenous population relative to those of Bolivia and Ecuador, yet all have about the same per capita income level.  Therefore, they claim, culture cannot be a factor.  This argument is so faulty that I do not know where to begin.  It completely ignores the fact that, since all three were Spanish colonies, they all now have similar cultures.  The only other way this argument can work is if we assume that the indigenous population has remained unchanged by those colonial experiences.  But to accept this argument is to go to a place like central Mexico and expect the people there to be dressed in Aztec garb, waving obsidian swords, and making human sacrifices to the gods.  I have been there and this does not happen, except in the shows for tourists.  The cold truth is that, while many are racially indigenous, the indigenous culture has been completely eradicated and replaced (or modified) by the Spanish culture.

The inability to distinguish culture from race is very dangerous and it is disturbing that academics fail to recognize the differences.  On a macro level it destroys the bonds that hold the modern nation-state together.  On a micro level it is racism in its purist form since it forces us to see race as a determinant of behavior.  This misunderstanding has led to some very dark moments in history.  A victim of one of those moments was Brad’s dad.  He was forced to spend several years of his childhood in an internment camp because people could not discern between being racially Japanese and culturally American.  It is shocking and sad that over 60 years later we still suffer from the same ignorance.

Generations: What a Difference a Century Makes!

I am currently reading “Doughboy War: The American Expeditionary Force in World War I” by James Hallas.  The book, which covers the war years of 1917-1918, is a collection of passages taken from journals, diaries, letters, personal narratives and unit histories.   I was struck by differences in attitudes of Americans then as compared to now. 

 

The following two passages are prime examples.

The first was written by a young American who was killed in the battle for the Ourcq River, fought in France late July 1918.  

America shall win the war.

Therefore I will work,

I will save,

I will sacrifice,

I will endure,

I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost,

As if the whole issue of the struggle

depended on me alone.

While I know that this does not represent the sentiment of every American, I do believe that it is indicative of the American people at the time.  Is it any wonder the people of this generation would start what would be called the “American Century?”  Or that they would go on to produce the generation of Americans that would come of age during the Great Depression and then go on to defeat the Marxist ideologies of Nazism, fascism, and communism?

It is striking when one compares this to the young people currently taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protest.  To them the above words are so foreign, the concepts so alien, that they might as well have been written by a Martian.  Unfortunately, a half century of entitlement propaganda, has ensured that these people will never be able to produce more than ever increasing demands.

The second passage highlights the difference in how we defined ourselves as Americans. It was taken from a German intelligence report in 1917.  This report was written shortly after the initial engagements were fought between the untested Americans and the veterans of the Imperial German Army. 

Only a few of the troops are of pure American origin; the majority is of German, Dutch, and Italian parentage, but these semi-Americans, almost all of whom were born in America and never have been to Europe before, fully feel themselves to be true born sons of their country. [Emphasis added by author of post]

 After decades of multiculturalism this too has become something of a lost sentiment or attitude.  Today first generation Americans are more likely to identify themselves by their heritage than as “true born sons of their country.”  

This forces me to ask, “Do we even know what it is to be American or has the concept become so diluted by hyphens that we that first generation Americans can no longer fully feel themselves to be true born sons of their country?”  

Oh, what a difference a century makes!                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

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?