SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (250475)12/4/2007 10:01:38 AM
From: Ruffian  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Can diversity destroy us?
Posted: December 4, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

On the Great Seal of the United States, first suggested by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, there was to be emblazoned a new motto: "E Pluribus Unum" – "Out of many, one."

It was in their unity, not their diversity, that the strength of the colonies resided. So Patrick Henry believed, as he declared, "The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American."

National identity must supersede state identity for America to survive.

Yet it has lately become fashionable to say that America is great not because she is united, but because she is diverse. It is because America is a multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual nation that she is a great nation. A corollary is that the more diverse America becomes, the better and greater she becomes.

After the Los Angeles riot of 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle was asked by his Japanese hosts if perhaps America did not suffer from too much diversity. "I begged to differ with my hosts," Quayle retorted. "I explained that our diversity is our strength."

And so our rulers, marinated in the myths that we "are a nation of immigrants" and "our diversity is our strength," continue to embrace mass immigration – the more the better. But are the myths true?

(Column continues below)

America was settled by colonists from the British Isles. In 1789, two centuries after Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, we were 99 percent Protestant. Until the Irish came in 1845, there was almost no immigration. Even during the Great Wave of 1890-1920, the number of immigrants was a fraction of the 38 million here today. And all had come from Europe. By 1960, we were almost 90 percent European and more than 90 percent Christian – of one nationality, American, one language, English, and one culture.

That America is gone forever.

Last week, we learned that in the last seven years 10.3 million people, almost all from the Third World, entered the United States, more than half illegally. The nation that was one-tenth minority in 1960 is now one-third minority. European-Americans will soon be a minority in the nation, as they are today in California, Texas and most large American cities.

And when that day comes, what then will unite us as a people?

Certainly not religious faith, for the last 40 years have seen a large influx of Muslims, the rise of a rabid secularism and the break-up of Christian churches – the Episcopalians most recently – over issues of morality: abortion, civil unions, homosexual bishops, assisted suicide, stem cell research, Darwin, creationism. No longer are we united by a common language, as the fastest growing radio and TV stations are Hispanic. And certainly not culture, as we are in a cultural war over history, heroes and holidays.

And how can we say diversity is a strength, when the most diverse nations of Europe, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, shattered into 22 nations as soon as they became free, and Slovaks and Czechs divorced? Ethnic and linguistic diversity is now pulling Belgium apart, as they tore Cyprus in two.

Since World War II, diversity – racial, religious, ethnic, cultural – has pulled Malaysia, the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan, Indonesia and Ethiopia apart, and is today pulling Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon apart. How, when tribalism is everywhere ascendant, is diversity a strength?

When Islam arose in the 7th century, our world became more diverse. Fourteen centuries of war followed. When Catholic Europe became more diverse with the Protestant Reformation, a century of war followed, ending in a Thirty Years War that carried away a third of all the German people.

There came a new diversity when the English came to the Red Man's continent in 1607 and Africans were brought as slaves in 1619. From that diversity came the near annihilation of American Indians and a racial divide that led to the American Civil War, bloodiest in the West in the 19th century.

Our racial diversity has ever been the most divisive issue in America – and remains so, as we see daily from Jena, the Imus affair and the Duke rape case.

Britain is more diverse than in the time of Victoria and Churchill. Is Britain a better, stronger nation now that London is Londonistan, madrassas defend the London bombers and race riots are common in the industrial north? If diversity is a strength, why do Scots wish to follow the Irish and secede?

Has Germany been strengthened by the diversity the Turks brought? Is France a stronger nation for the 5 million to 8 million Muslims concentrated in the banlieus? How have the Japanese suffered from their lack of diversity?

The Melting Pot – language, law, culture – worked to make us one nation and one people. But that Melting Pot, cracked and broken, is rejected by multiculturalists as an instrument of cultural genocide, crafted by white Europeans to annihilate native cultures.

This generation is witnessing the Deconstruction of America. Out of one, many.



To: one_less who wrote (250475)12/4/2007 10:12:32 AM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
might you be overstating the shiaa crescent global threat case? This might be similar to the old soviet case of creating buffers after history of a devastating war. Was stalin advancing communism or protecting mother russia? A little of both i guess. Given the risk assessment review by US intel, perhaps some of irans motivations was to use threat of nukes as a way to rejoin the world. Each of the three options represents opiniions of one interest group or another in iran.
1 spread shiaa islam khomenini, ahmadijad
2. buffer military, rafsansjani and assymetric deterrent to US perceived threat.
3. re-engage with the world reformers, liberals

In 1980, it seemed clear that it was mostly #1 or khomeni as trotsky. Post iraq war, #2 seemed to be the reason and maybe now with some discourse between US and Iran we can move to #3.