Saturday, June 9, 2007

Post America America

I'm sure I'm likely to be pilloried for the following but I feel this is a serious issue that must be thoughtfully and seriously considered. Those that dismiss the question are either not seriously considering the answer, like the prospect of the potential outcome, are in denial, or are knee-jerk Liberals controlled by their emotions and a revulsion of the reality of actions having consequences. The question is this, can "America" as we know it from its founding through the present day survive if whites become just another minority or if Latinos become the majority? Yes, the country known as the USA will continue to exist, the form of government won't change, and the borders aren't likely to move. But how can the character of the nation survive?

The character of a nation is a derivative of its people and the character of the USA is predominantly defined, for now, by the culture of its northwestern European founders and earliest immigrants. Later waves of immigrants were assimilated into the WASP culture of the USA and as long as immigration from WASP countries exceeded or matched immigration from other countries or the level of non-WASP immigration was low relative to the US population a balance was maintained. People assimilated and became part of the historical America.

Now we are faced with a situation, started by Ted Kennedy in 1965, that is changing the fundamental character of America threatening to break the future from the past. When Ted Kennedy made the decision to change US immigration law so Europe was no longer favored as the source of immigrants he set in motion the process of creation of post America America. How many problems do we face today because of this dramatic change in policy? A policy by the way that Ted guaranteed would not impact the racial balance of the nation. Did he know in fact that it would? Would we be faced with the swamp of "multiculturalism" and the cult of "diversity" that cost the nations billions in lawsuits every year if not for the '65 legislation? Would we be confronting domestic Islamism with its concomitant threats to freedom and liberty? Would we be debating whether English should be our national language? What would be the current state of Liberalism, the enemy of freedom loving people everywhere, if not infused with ethnic agitators to increase its base and fuel its power?

As we consider the prospect of legalizing 12-20 million poor, uneducated, non-English speaking, non-whites we need to consider the long term impact on our country, our culture, and our future. I personally look south across the Latin American landscape and dread the future. Were we bordered by China, Egypt, or Zimbabwe the future would be just as dim. There is no history of liberty, freedom, or prosperity in these countries. Culture does matter in spite of what Utopian cultural relativists claim.

Unfortunately race matters too. That is simply undeniable. If it weren't so we wouldn't have the NAACP, LULAC, MECHA, La Raza, the Congressional Black, Hispanic, etc. Caucus, Negro College Fund, et al. I could literally go on for pages. Race matters. Especially to those in the minority. In many cases it is all that matters. People are black, or Hispanic, or Muslim, etc. before they are a man, a woman, an American. Except for fringe white supremacists this can't be said of the white majority and I'm sure that is so because we are the majority. However, the history of whites in places like Nigeria prove the opposite since to my knowledge they didn't form whites only organizations seeking special recognition and preferences.

So, since race matters how is the treatment of US history going to be managed in the future? How do you teach a majority Hispanic class in Texas that Mexico was the enemy at the Alamo? That Santayana was a bad guy? It's human nature for people to identify with their own kind. How many blacks are history professors? Not many, since US history isn't appealing at a personal level to blacks. When viewed through the lens of race, US history isn't about the grand voyages of discovery by the early European explorers, the defeat of Britain to found the nation, the struggle of the civil war in terms of states rights, WWI or WWII. Rather US history is viewed from the perspective of slavery, racial oppression, and the struggles of the civil rights era. Not many people can rise above their race to embrace the history of their nation and be proud of it. People look for heroes in people like themselves. US history offers few heroes that aren't white. At least blacks have been here long enough to have a small group of heroes and great figures, even before MLK, to look up to. Who so for Hispanics? I predict that they will have almost no interest in US history and will instead look south for inspiration and historical continuity. They will seek tighter integration with Latin America while loosening the bonds we now have with Europe, trading the first world for the third.

The US can manage immigration in numbers that don't threaten our existence but the massive numbers we are considering offering amnesty to and the millions upon millions that will follow them do indeed, in my opinion, threaten our national identity and this threat must be addressed honestly and openly. Hispanics, other minority groups, and many white Liberals will of course make any such discussion impossible to have and will berate anyone seeking such a discussion as a "racist". But why should we whites sit back silently while our country is transformed by guilty white Liberals, the ethnic lobby, and Big Business? Those that sit back and have absolute confidence in America to transform this polyglot wave into historically and culturally connected Americans are deluded.

This problem is one of our own making and the bleak future I describe doesn't have to happen if we have the strength and courage to call for an immigration policy that maintains our nations' character. We don't have to transform if we choose not to.

4 comments:

JSword said...

I would be amiss if I were not to correct the blog's author in stating that Santayana; that is, George Santayana, the Spanish-born philosopher, was not in fact Antonio de Santana, the alluded to Mexican general commanding the Mexican army at the Battle of the Alamo.

Charlemagne said...

Thank you for the catch.

Protestant said...

Insightful post. The part about the framing of US history, esp. as taught to youth, really hits home what racial change will mean.

I dread to imagine an American history class in the year 2200 or so. "The grand voyages of discovery by the early European explorers"--Racist conquerors, slavers,genocidal maniacs who invaded peace-loving saints and slaughtered them. "The defeat of Britain to found the nation"--One of the many peculiar fratricidal wars among the war-crazed hateful white people, relatively unimportant to American history. May get one small paragraph in the textbook. "The struggle of the civil war in terms of states rights"--Once called 'The Civil War' by white racists, The Great Slave-Liberation War, led by General John Brown, was one of the most glorious events of the past 500 years. Relatively minor participants such as R.E.Lee and U.S.Grant will not be mentioned. "WWI or WWII"-More peculiar fratricidal wars by Europeans with some involvement by European colonists from America. The details of the Wars are largely omitted, except the Holocaust--which is given three chapters in the text-- but it is stressed that the result of the wars was one of the greatest events in all history, as it broke the will of European people across the globe to continue their racist ways and set the stage for God's chosen darker races to ascend to Power and stop the racist white rule of terror and genocide forever.

"Rather US history is viewed from the perspective of slavery, racial oppression, and the struggles of the civil rights era."-Each of these is naturally given a chapter. M.L.King Jr is given two pages, Malcolm X one page. George Washington two sentences. George Washington Carver, three sentences.

Gringo_Malo said...

I challenge some of your initial assumptions, Charlemagne. It is not at all certain that a country called the United States will survive. It is not at all certain that, if a country by that name does survive, it will control all or most of the territory that it does now. Our form of government has changed radically, at least four times, in 1865-1877, 1913, 1933, and 1965. The character of the nation, or of its founding generation anyway, has obviously not survived. Surviving in the anarcho-tyranny that our country has become will leave few people time or energy to worry about history.