I'm getting so sick and tired of stories like this one. It isn't especially any worse than the thousands like it we've seen in the last couple of decades, but even the headline ticked me off: "Explosion of diversity sweeps U.S., census shows." The story explains:
From South Carolina's budding immigrant population to the fast-rising number of Hispanics in Arkansas, minority groups make up an increasing share of the population in every state but one, according to figures released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.
"This is just an extraordinary explosion of diversity all across the United States," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "It's diversity and immigration going hand in hand."
That is just extraordinary crap, and anybody who talks like that doesn't have a clue about what real diversity is. This has always been a nation of minorities. Diversity has made us, and how we've dealt with it has defined us. All these people are talking about, really, is skin color, and that's the least interesting, most superficial kind of diversity there is. (No, language doesn't really enter into it; how are we going to be scared by big, bad Spanish when we've absorbed just about every language on the planet?)
These diversity nuts will change the country, destroy it, in fact, if we pay attention to them. Instead of cutting through all our superficial differences and building a common bond of American culture, they want us to celebrate our separate subcultures and turn our melting pot into a salad bowl.
Now, if someone can patiently explain to the rightwing dummy why a Hispanic kid in California and a black kid in Chicago and a white kid in Aboite -- who are mostly all educated in the same kinds of public schools and who are all caught up in the same popular culture -- are more "diverse" than an Irish immigrant fleeing the potato famine, a Jewish immigrant escaping from Russia and an Italian immigrant trying to get away from the Cosa Nostra, and I'll take it all back.
Comments
I know, I know...it's just another ploy to show us how easy it is to "revinvent" the wheel!
Maybe they want to demonstrate to us their "diversity through stupidity"???
((Theenk tank???? WE don need no steekin theenk tank!))
B.G.
The question's flawed. I can't tell you that two sets of kids are going to be more diverse than they other - the limit is AS diverse. Are Hispanics and Blacks more diverse than Italians and Jews? It's an illogical question. Two kids can only be as diverse as two kids.
However, living in Queens, perhaps the most diverse borough in the country, I will tell you that there are kids here coming from -Stans you never even heard of, and from minorities within -stans...
To me, growing up, an immigrant was some kid who spoke Spanish or Russian - just not American, but there are subcultures here I never even heard of until I moved here. There are Bukharan Jews from Uzbekistan, Kurds, Haka-Chinese who've lived in India for ages, Chino-Cubans, Fukwanese, Indo-Guyanese, Istrians (making some of the best italian food I've ever had) and Coptic Egyptians. Whereas earlier in NYC we would have seen the holy trinity of immigrants - Russian Jews, Italians and Irish. They're all still here, but in lesser amounts. The Jews in Queens are mainly Orthodox, the Italians have mostly moved to the suburbs, and the Irish are staying home where the economy is just smashing.
Oh, and there's still plenty of Greeks!
Brilliantly written (BTW, you've been linked to National Review Online, which is how I found this post). I live in New York, which for many diversophiles is the appropriate model for the country as a whole. And indeed, New York is more genuinely diverse than most any other place, in that we're a gateway destination where immigrants still retain much of what truly does make them different. But the difference between New York and the rest of the country is our density: Yes, we have our Chinatowns (three of them, actually) and Little Indias and so forth, but even folks who live entirely within these neighborhoods cannot escape that they're surrounded by a much broader culture. All they need do is ride the subway to be reminded of that. My worry is that in the rest of the country, where isolation is much more possible, this ideal will be able to harden in a way that's good for no one.
Oh, but CJ, they CAN escape that they're surrounded by a much broader culture. Each of the Chinatowns are raising kids that don't know how to speak English that well... In Astoria, they grow up learning Greek along with English, and people from Astoria have their own Greek accent. They may ride the subway, but they keep to themselves when they can. It's a nice win-win for these groups - when they move here, they don't really need to learn the language, but their children have to... or they *did* have to until this nonsense about bilingualism took hold.
I don't know that the way we are in NYC is the right choice for the rest of the country, but I'm very happy to live in a city with this many choices for ethnic food.
Unfortunately, these superficial differences were made very prevalent by the policies of the United States' governement up until about 40 years ago. Skin color was THE dominant trait/information by which citizens in this country were distinguished from one another.
Although the country is a better place today, you cannot erase almost 200 years of state sponsored racism in 40 years. It may be different in NY, but here in the midwest and most certainly in the South there are still plenty of racists that would be willing to share their $.02 with you about the difference between the two groups you mentioned.
The answer, of course, is that neither is more diverse than the other. But until the bigotry in this country is reduced by another order of magnitude you will still see people being subdivided by the color of their skin...
Mr. Morris:
America is indeed experiencing an "explosion of diversity". Trying to massage it away with a shifting definition of diversity doesn't change the situation.
In the example you cite, an Irish, Russian, and Italian have far less biological distance between them than a white, black, and Hispanic (e.g. Native American, most likely) do. Ergo, the famed Melting Pot was able to mix the Italian, Irish, and Russian immigrants into America without too much trouble. Granted, it was a little tougher with these groups than it was with groups that were closer to our English foundation (the Dutch, Scandinavians, etc.), but it wasn't so great that they all didn't eventually fit in.
But not every group can assimilate as well as the three in your example, and biology has a lot to do with it. Many people shudder at the thought that human behavior has significant biological components, but science is showing it to be more and more true every year (see this from Craig Venter, the man who mapped the human genome: "It will inevitably be revealed that there are strong genetic components associated with most aspects of what we attribute to human existence including personality subtypes, language capabilities, mechanical abilities, intelligence, sexual activities and preferences, intuitive thinking, quality of memory, will power, temperament, athletic abilities, etc. We will find unique manifestations of human activity linked to genetics associated with isolated and/or inbred populations." In other words, groups of people are very different in important biological ways, and these ways can't be changed by any known method).
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_12.html#venter
So yes, America is indeed experiencing an explosion in racial diversity that it has not seen before, and it may turn out to be fatal. Our previous immigration was limited primarily to groups of people of European descent, who, while not identical, are close enough biologically to be able to successfully assimilate given the right environment. It's simplistic and scientifically false to say that all ethnic immigrant groups have the same ability to successfully assimilate into America, and Hispanic assimilation thus far is not promising.
Note that a few non-European immigrant groups, like East Asians, have assimilated quickly and well into our society. Why can they do it when Mexicans, for example, cannot? Answer: biology again. IQ plays a major role in determining success or failure of an immigrant group in assimilation, and East Asians have average IQs of 105, above the white mean of 100. Hence their success. Average Native American IQs are much lower (around 90), meaning assimilation is not likely.
Anyone interested in reading further might pick up "The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature," a NY Times bestseller written by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670031518/002-3940570-8579201?v=glance&n=283155
I
Larry Morris writes:
"...there is no difference between...the first round of immigrants that really built this country and the current round..."
Yes, there is, if we're talking about Latin Americans of primarily indigenous descent.
The main important difference is average IQ. There are other important biological differences between groups, which you can hear about in a lecture from Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker here:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/23/
In a nutshell, the "Blank Slate" idea -- that all groups of humans are interchangeable, since nurture is king in shaping what we become, nature only informing superficial differences like skin and hair color -- is crumbling. The science pouring out today states unambiguously that there is a major biological component to who and what we are, including in important areas like intelligence, temperament, and susceptibility to diseases.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?ex=1268456400&en=b3dac786e0583b4e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
And there are even group differences in treatment of diseases, giving lie to the claim that racial difference are only external and superficial: the FDA approved a drug called BiDil last year exclusively for use in patients of African descent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isosorbide_dinitrate/hydralazine
Groups of people are very different in important biological ways that environmental changes can only tweak at the margins. The difference between previous European groups of immigrants and the current wave of pure Native American and mestizo populations from Mexico is that the European immigrants were close enough biologically to our English foundation to eventually fit in.
What does all this new scientific understanding mean? To an ethnically homogenous country like Iceland or Japan, very little. To an ethnically heterogenous country like the United States, it will have far-reaching and unpleasant social consequences. Which is why, when Harvard's Pinker was asked what the most "dangerous" idea in the world was, he responded:
"Groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments...Advances in genetics and genomics will soon provide the ability to test hypotheses about group differences rigorously."
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html#pinker
The Mexican wave is likely going to wind up being what any objective observer would already deem them: a permanent economic underclass. Not a pretty future for the U.S., and a big reason -- THE big reason -- why we should end illegal immigration asap.
Ricihie, you make some good points, but I think you are missing some important bits: being an assimilated American, part of the mainstream American culture, does not require a high IQ. Higher IQ leads to better economic opportunities, but there are plenty of American idiots mixed in with the American geniuses and all the in-betweens. If you look around, you will also find plenty of Americans of Mexican descent that are truly culturally American. And you will find "Americans" of African decent who have stubbornly refused to assimilate, and who see themselves by race first, and only secondarily as being American.
Neither genetics nor IQ determine who is a real American: rather it's an identity which people learn to see themselves as.
I'm not sure I could enumerate what traits are fundamental to being "American" but at a first stab:
1) Self identification. If you see yourself primarily as a ______-American, you're probably not there yet. If you see yourself primarily as an "American", you're probably one of us. You must also recognize in others that American-ness is not race based.
2) English as the primary language. It doesn't have to be your first language, but it should at the least be the language you use by default when approaching a stranger, and use most of the time in your social interactions.
3) Recognize the American culture for what it is at its core: an amalgam of stuff from cultures throughout the world. This is what we ought to be teaching our kids in school instead of telling them to value diversity; see what other cultures have that is cool and graft it into your own. It's taking the best of everything that makes us great, not just having differences.
I'm not sure I want to go much beyond that. Meeting those two requirements means you can communicate with all thusly defined Americans, and relate to them as being fellow Americans.
As for your comments regarding Mexicans as a permanent underclass.. it is perfectly plausible that the majority of Mexicans will remain on the low end of American society going forward, but between cross breeding and random variation there will always be some fraction of Mexicans born with high IQs and/or other valuable traits that put them in the upper eschalon of American society... as long as they don't get held back by something stupid, like being taught in Spanish (greatly crippling their upward mobility in an English speaking nation), or an overbearing commitment to serving the Mexican-American community (with a resultant enmity with the rest of us Americans).
Daniel writes:
"...between cross breeding and random variation there will always be some fraction of Mexicans born with high IQs and/or other valuable traits that put them in the upper eschalon of American society."
Agreed Daniel, but the overall average of Americans with IQs in a certain range will fall as the % of our population that is mestizo/Native American increases. Two essays you may enjoy on this topic:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm
Daniel:
Bravo...very well stated!
I agree that we (as Americans) are the result of all the "parts", and THAT alone gives us a uniqueness and a cultural opportunity few others on this planet can state.
Our nation suffers from one (rather recent) flaw however, and that is the tolerance of various sub-cultures which, over the years have developed into what could be construed as "inner city-states" replete with abberant forms of self-government, justice, and mores.
This is a direct result of the inability to assimilate into AMERICAN society, embracing all that IT has to offer by way of culture, laws and moral conduct not withstanding.
When the word "diversity" is mentioned today, I cringe at the fact that all they are saying is that all AMERICANS have to put up with growing SUB-CULTURES in our midst, and that the politically-correct among us will do everything to not only foster these, but encourage them to expand further.
And that may lead to the loss of what being a REAL AMERICAN is all about.
An AMERICAN should be defined NOT by skin color, ethnicity, nationality of origin, socio-economic variables or even which religion is subscribed to.
It IS an amalgam of all of these and more which makes us not diverse alone, but united within those diversities.
Seems we're heading in the wrong direction.
Anyone have a compass and a road map?
B.G.
True. Also an unfortunate observation is that IQ tends to be inversely related to reproductive productivity. It would seem like this trend could be reduced (though with much howling from the left no doubt) by shifting government policy toward a more libertarian direction (i.e. lower taxes, but more relevantly less welfare and other support) while perhaps subsidizing contraceptive technology. If poorer people can't afford kids, but can afford contraception one would expect them to have fewer kids.. however, there is a cultural dimension to this as well. The subcultures in America that do best in America economically and tend to have the highest IQs also tend to have the least cultural pressure in favor of having children (and the most pressures against having children). I really have no idea how to even begin to address that.
What's missing is that the Italian, the Jew, and the Irishman were diverse, but in more interesting ways.
Today we have undeducated Salvadorans, Mexicans and Hmong coming. 100 years ago we had poor but educated Jews, Italians, and Irish coming. Who was more useful and interesting? Who was more likely to add spice to the mix?
Nowadays, the term 'Diversity' is used as a a PC way of saying 'non-whites'. I guess the article would'nt sound as PC and uppity enough to impress the diehard liberals if they said this instead-
"'Explosion of non-whites' sweeps U.S., census shows, whites on the decline"
It gives a far different presentation, though its the truth. and is really the only reason to post such an article. I mean really, as the OP said, america has been diverse from day one of its founding. There were Irish, Germans, Scots, Italians as well as others present, not to meantion there various religous differences ie- Protestant, Catholic, Menonite, Orthodox, Judiasm etc.
By saying Diversity is only arriving now is actually a slap in the face to the predominantly 'White' regions which the article says is only now becoming diverse now. Phooey to that. My own neighborhood is made up of Greeks, italians, germans and a host of other european nationalities that all arrived before and after WW2. And that type of euro immigration is common all around this country.
My town has 13 different churches of many different denominations and they all use different euro languages to preach with. Yet they are white, so i guess to PC types that doesnt count, which is ignorant.
If anything, diversity means a multitude of cultures and the vast majority of immigrants reaching new states is hispanic only and not indian/muslim/chinese etc. so the 'diversity' that the AP article is claiming is a very weak one since it is only one culture.
For a variety of reasons, most geographical, Europe developed into a hodgepodge of different languages, cultures, and religions.
The European immigrants who came here 100-400 years ago came from this vast milieu. They were Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Anglican. They spoke English, Welsh, Irish, Gaelic, Italian, Greek, Yiddish, German, Dutch, Russian, French, & Polish. They brought an amazing variety of cultures to the table. While perhaps not the most educated, they weren't the least educated, either. What's more, they took actual *risks* in getting here - leaving a land they knew, crossing a dangerous ocean, going to a land with no welfare system.
Today, all that has been turned on its head. Then, our immigration came mostly from Europe. Today it comes mostly from Latin America. But while the Latin American immigrants may come from any number of countries - Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Columbia, Brazil, etc. - they all have one religion and, save for the Brazilians, speak one langauge. Moreover, they are the *least* educated of their peoples. What's more, they took *no risks* getting here. The death rates of illegals crossing the desert don't come anywhere near the death rates from crossing an ocean. They arrive to a network of friends and family, with government subsidized housing, medical care, food stamps, and education to greet them.
Here's a thought experiment: Imagine two rooms, filled with 20 people. In one room, make it "diverse" in the perverse way which modern leftists use the term. In the other room, put 20 whites, slected at random from across the country.
Which room will be more educated? Which will be more religiously diverse? In which room will the convseration be more interesting? Which group of people will have more interesting backgrounds and careers? In which room will the group, given a problem to solve, be more likely to solve the problem?
I'd bet you it'd be the second room.
Thanks Bob.
I'm afraid I don't have a map, and my compass isn't working perfectly, but let's see what I can get out of it..
Submitted for your approval, an addendum to the preceeding fundamentals of American-ness.. perhaps we shall call these ideals of American-ness. Traits that are not pre-requisite to being a "true" American, but whose widespread occurance are key to our success.
1) Tolerance, Christian-style. This is the ability to "love the sinner, but hate the sin" as they say in church. You can criticize homosexuality without hating gays. Likewise, you can be friendly to all of your fellow Americans even while you unashamedly point out to them those traits you find sinful, foolish, and/or fattening. The reciprical trait to this is some degree of "thick-skinned"-ness. I'm sick and tired of hearing about people being "offended" by every little thing. If you can't give a legitimate criticism, keep the insults to yourself; but, if you can't a legitimate criticism, you need to learn. But, at the end of the day, all your neighbors are sinners. You need to deal with and cooperate with a bunch of imperfect people.
2) Respect for the law. This one sadly seems to be disappearing in American culture. When the law is wrong, the law should be changed: spread your thoughts on why the law is wrong, convince others, and eventually the democratic nature of our society will get it changed. Speed limits and copyright laws, unfortunately, give most people an example where breaking the law usually directly harms no one and mildly benefits the law breaker, and most often with no enforcement.. which gives inroads for a sense that following the laws is unnecessary, sometimes even counterproductive. And those examples are illegal actions that most people these days shrug at. In some subcultures this indifference to the law extends to broader categories of behavior. But society functions best with a shared set of rules (laws) that everyone knows and follows. Also, when people simply ignore bad laws, the bad laws stay on the books.. and tend to be enforced randomly (and sometimes are dredged up for purely political or personal reasons) making them worse than if they were non-existant or perfectly followed.
3) Responsibility. The primary cost of freedom is responsibility. (The secondary is eternal vigilance: somebody has to fend off the would-be tyrrants.) This trait is contradicted and eroded by the welfare state. Quite simply, if people face the consquences of their own actions, they develope responsibility, and through the power of responsibility they guide themselves toward better consequences and all of society ultimately benefits. When people are shielded from the consequences of their actions (by government intervention, by union protection, etc.) they tend to act more foolishly and irresponsibly, leaving their safety nets to protect them, and dragging down society as a whole.
Anyone have more to add?
Actually, ... sometimes I think I'm just getting old and cranky - perhaps it's too much to ask that everyone I meet across any counter (in this country) or talk to on the phone (again, in this country - 'course, nowadays when you call support for any AMERICAN company - God knows where they are) speak, and understand, English.
Larry: I was getting old and cranky on that topic 8 years ago.. in a couple more months I'll be 25. At least the Indians who do our tech support speak more fluent English than many Californians.
Well, Daniel, I lasted longer than you did - I'm in my late fifties - what that really means is that it's getting worse, faster. And, I know, we gave up calling our support folks - we just figure it out on our own anymore - can't understand half what they say. (And, they get upset if you ask to speak to someone else, ...)
Good lord! What a bunch of white noise, and I don't mean the inoccuous kind.
Actually there was a very good article in the Atlantic recently that mentioned the difference between Arab immigrants in European countries and ours. In Europe they're marginalized and excluded and remain in a permanent underclass. In the U.S. they quickly become middle class by virtue of hard work, and they tend to own businesses and send their children to college. It's people like the French, who try to keep their culture "pure," who alienate them, and thus second- and third-generation Arabs in Europe are much more likely to be sympathetic to terror groups in the Middle East than their American counterparts.
So I'm not buying the line of crap that Hispanics will remain a permanent underclass. No, from what I saw when I lived in Chicago, they'll soon outstrip the white trash who talk this nonsense in terms of class and education, and that's what's really rankling this ilk.
And as for "Christian tolerance," calling someone a sinner is hostility, not love. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of those phony platitudes people use to exonerate themselves from charges of being bigots and bluenoses, which is exactly what they are. If what others do in their private lives bothers you, it's a fair bet you need to get a private life of your own.
So I'm not buying the line of crap that Hispanics will remain a permanent underclass. No, from what I saw when I lived in Chicago, they'll soon outstrip the white trash who talk this nonsense in terms of class and education, and that's what's really rankling this ilk. - alex
Sorry, Alex, but the data just doesn't bear you out. Heather Mac Donald recently did jujitsu on that big lie. You can read it here: http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigration_reform.html
The article is exhaustive on the matter, and no more needs to be said here.
As for Arab immigrants, they might do somewhat better in America than in Europe, but they are still poorer, on average, than native Americans. The disparity is due largely to economic policies. Unemployment rates are much higher in Europe than the US, thanks to government policies that make it difficult to fire people (and, hence, hire people). They also have generous welfare payments encouraging people to stay on the dole. The US doesn't have that, especially for immigrants.
Even in the US they don't assimilate. They still segregate themselves from everyone esle. And assimilation isn't primarily our job - it's theirs.
Three more points about assimilation:
1) Muslims in Europe commit disproportionate amounts of crime. White Europeans *aren't even welcome* in many Muslim parts of town.
2) Self-segregation is huge. 55% of Pakistani marriages in the UK are between 1st cousins. An even larger number are arranged between legal residents of the UK and a partner from an Islamic country - deliberately made to bring more Muslims into the country.
3) If Europeans don't want their Muslim immigrants, why should they have to accept them? No government has the right to force people to like them, especially when they get mad at co-wprkers who have stuffed pigs on their desks.
European countries are small - smaller than most Islamic nations - and crowded. The UK is the size of Oregon and has 60 million people. How welcome would a bunch of English families feel in Islamabad or Riyadh?
Craig, I'll believe the Atlantic before I believe anything published in that right-wing mouthpiece you just cited to. Furthermore, I can tell you from first-hand experience that I lived amongst and worked with numerous second- and third-generation Hispanics who probably have it over you.
As for ethnics being self-segregating, so effing what? It's their job to assimilate whenever they damn well please and it's nobody's business whether they do. Those who are afforded work and educational opportunities are the ones who assimilate. You seem to think that assimilation requires the denunciation of everything you are. Kind of like Bush's "you're either with us or you're against us." What I'm against is demagogues who stir up ad hominem hatreds to serve their political ends, and people like you who take the bait.
Oh, and I'll add that there are plenty of American Christian sects that self-segregate. Just because they're white and speak some semblance of English when they're not speaking in tongues doesn't mean their American bona fides are any more sterling than those of Muslims who prefer to associate/intermarry with their own.