why buchanan's wrong part 2
Sep. 8th, 2006 10:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaIn the interview with Tom Ashbrook i discussed on Wednesday, Pat Buchanan claimed that he was describing a historical pattern whereby nations have been infiltrated, culturally weakened, and finally destroyed, by large influxes of immigrants who are not assimilated into the existing culture. To 'prove' that he wasn't being racist, he cited two examples of this which had been perpetrated by Caucasians: Texas and Kosovo.
In the 1820s and 1830s, a relatively empty portion of Mexico called Tejas was settled by a community of Americans ("Texians") who retained their identity as Americans rather than immigrant Mexicans. Tensions ensued and in 1836 the Texians declared independence and, after a successful war against the Mexican president, proclaimed the Republic of Texas.
Some argue that something similar has happened in Kosovo, which during the Yugoslav regime saw its ethnic proportions change drastically in just a few decades. Perhaps a better example would have been northern Ireland.
This argument does not apply to the United States, though. Historically, immigrant populations have retained their identities and yet still become American citizens, and have given us noted contributers to our culture and history. This is because the United States was not created on the basis of a defining ethnic or religious identity.
(Well, other than exclusion of Indians, but if the US was true to its principles we would negate that exclusion.)
... As i was saying, in principle the government of the United States draws its power and authority from the consent of the governed. Which means that the US is not run by "rulers" but by civil servants - people whose purpose is not to tell us how to live our lives but to facilitate our needs.
Put another way, it is not the place of the United States government to tell people what language to speak, what religion to practice, what lifestyles to lead. The United States is a nation of laws, not a nation defined by ethnicity, religion, or culture.
That means that whoever lives here and makes up the citizenry defines what it means to be American. If in 50 years the majority of American citizens speak Spanish, this will not destroy the United States, because the nation of laws will adapt to the cultural shift, just as it has adapted to numerous cultural shifts in the past.
In actuality, we started out pretty far from that ideal and still have a long ways to go, but it is a good ideal and, furthermore, it is the way of the future. It is the only way to have a fair and just multicultural society, and the multinational corporations, the UN, and many NGOs operate on similar principles. They could not succeed otherwise.
The reactionaries whose agenda means pushing every white person into mandatory heterosexual marriage and mandatory child-rearing are hereby exposed as counter to the essence of America. Their vision is of an empire populated by white Christians, not a land of opportunity.
In the 1820s and 1830s, a relatively empty portion of Mexico called Tejas was settled by a community of Americans ("Texians") who retained their identity as Americans rather than immigrant Mexicans. Tensions ensued and in 1836 the Texians declared independence and, after a successful war against the Mexican president, proclaimed the Republic of Texas.
Some argue that something similar has happened in Kosovo, which during the Yugoslav regime saw its ethnic proportions change drastically in just a few decades. Perhaps a better example would have been northern Ireland.
This argument does not apply to the United States, though. Historically, immigrant populations have retained their identities and yet still become American citizens, and have given us noted contributers to our culture and history. This is because the United States was not created on the basis of a defining ethnic or religious identity.
(Well, other than exclusion of Indians, but if the US was true to its principles we would negate that exclusion.)
... As i was saying, in principle the government of the United States draws its power and authority from the consent of the governed. Which means that the US is not run by "rulers" but by civil servants - people whose purpose is not to tell us how to live our lives but to facilitate our needs.
Put another way, it is not the place of the United States government to tell people what language to speak, what religion to practice, what lifestyles to lead. The United States is a nation of laws, not a nation defined by ethnicity, religion, or culture.
That means that whoever lives here and makes up the citizenry defines what it means to be American. If in 50 years the majority of American citizens speak Spanish, this will not destroy the United States, because the nation of laws will adapt to the cultural shift, just as it has adapted to numerous cultural shifts in the past.
In actuality, we started out pretty far from that ideal and still have a long ways to go, but it is a good ideal and, furthermore, it is the way of the future. It is the only way to have a fair and just multicultural society, and the multinational corporations, the UN, and many NGOs operate on similar principles. They could not succeed otherwise.
The reactionaries whose agenda means pushing every white person into mandatory heterosexual marriage and mandatory child-rearing are hereby exposed as counter to the essence of America. Their vision is of an empire populated by white Christians, not a land of opportunity.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 09:46 pm (UTC)