3.31.2006

Immigrate or Assimilate?

Peggy Noonan, in her article, hit this topic out of the park:

What this all got me thinking about, the next day, was . . . immigration. I know that seems a lurch, but there's a part of the debate that isn't sufficiently noted. There are a variety of things driving American anxiety about illegal immigration and we all know them--economic arguments, the danger of porous borders in the age of terrorism, with anyone able to come in.

But there's another thing. And it's not fear about "them." It's anxiety about us.

It's the broad public knowledge, or intuition, in America, that we are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically. And if you don't do that, you'll lose it all.

We used to do it. We loved our country with full-throated love, we had no ambivalence. We had pride and appreciation. We were a free country. We communicated our pride and delight in this in a million ways--in our schools, our movies, our popular songs, our newspapers. It was just there, in the air. Immigrants breathed it in. That's how the last great wave of immigrants, the European wave of 1880-1920, was turned into a great wave of Americans.

We are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically now. We are assimilating them culturally. Within a generation their children speak Valley Girl on cell phones. "So I'm like 'no," and he's all 'yeah,' and I'm like, 'In your dreams.' " Whether their parents are from Trinidad, Bosnia, Lebanon or Chile, their children, once Americans, know the same music, the same references, watch the same shows. And to a degree and in a way it will hold them together. But not forever and not in a crunch.

Well said--I myself am a product of people who both immigrated to this country and assimilated. I believe that there really is a core of American experience and values at the center of this country, that make us who we are, in spite of what some radical multi-culturalists argue.
It has nothing to do with racism, or cultural imperialism--it has everything to do with a wider shared identity that should bind all Americans together, regardless of whether they are Norwegian Americans, or Mexican Americans.
This cultural assimilation is hit and miss--it's pop culture, which changes at a frightening speed, and is mass-produced and transmitted commercially. This isn't America, although those things are American. There is a formal, "taught" America that seems to have been dropped out of schools in favor of political correctness, or an attempt to balance actual and perceived injustices of our shared past.
But that just severs the link that should bind us all together, and makes us into tribes (or victims and oppressors, or the priveleged and exploited). If there is no "us" for people coming to this country to join, then we remain fragmented, and E Pluribus Unum means nothing anymore. We don't ask them to give up lutefisk, or fish tacos, but we invite them to learn about our common history, warts and all, and take their place in it.
To do otherwise is to stand outside, yet be inside, and we can't afford for that to happen.

Borders Becomes a Victim of Terrorism!

Click the title below to read the original article:
Borders, Waldenbooks Won't Carry Magazine
- By CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, March 29, 2006

(03-29) 16:36 PST Buffalo, N.Y. (AP) --

Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

"For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority," Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

Well, how nice of Borders! It's all about safety, isn't it?

The magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism in suburban Amherst, includes four of the drawings that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse.

Islamic tradition bars depiction of Muhammad to prevent idol worship, which is strictly prohibited.

If you aren't familiar with these cartoons, you can read a nice article about them here at Wikipedia. Now, as for that second bit, about Islamic tradition--read here to find out that it isn't quite so cut and dried as people think. There is another problem here--since when was Borders a bookstore that was run according to Muslim custom? If Borders is so worried about "offending" violent groups, they'd better close their stores tomorrow.

Some people, like said Paul Kurtz, editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry, are quite incensed by this action:

"What is at stake is the precious right of freedom of expression....Cartoons often provide an important form of political satire ... To refuse to distribute a publication because of fear of vigilante violence is to undermine freedom of press — so vital for our democracy."

I partially agree with Kurtz. Cartoons are an important form of political satire, and have been for many, many years. On the other hand, Borders are a private company, and they have the right to sell or not sell what they want. I am sure that Free Inquiry magazine is available at many other bookstores. And this is what Borders' spokesperson points out:
"We absolutely respect our customers' right to choose what they wish to read and buy and we support the First Amendment," Bingham said. "And we absolutely support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. We've just chosen not to carry this particular issue in our stores."
Okay, let me parse this--Borders respects the rights of customers to buy certain publications. They support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoon. But then they decide that it is less important to sell a magazine that contains these cartoons, than it is to avoid offending people (which is what Bingham really means by just choosing not carry THAT issue.)
It's not really a free speech issue, but it does indicate that for Borders, certain things seem to be more important than that.
Yet as Tim Blair points out, perhaps Borders is chickening out and being inconsistent in their practice of free speech.

I can't figure out just what Borders is afraid of here--are they just being touchy-feely, pat-ourselves-on-the-back-for-being-so-senstive, or are they responding to a genuine threat?

If there is a genuine threat, then perhaps Borders had better police ALL its books for materials offensive to these radical Muslims. And better shut off those Wi-Fi portals in the coffee shops--people might be looking at those cartoons online! Oh no!

Why are they choosing to knuckle under to radical Muslims who live half a world away? If they choose to honor this one custom, it seems inconsistent to not follow ALL of them, or purge their shelves of ANY offensive materials. The gay sex books should be the next to go, of course, since those are offensive to Muslims. Better make sure that Salman Rushdie books aren't sold, either, or any art books that contain historical pictures of Islamic art depicting Mohammed in the past.

But, of course, most people who are offended don't act violently like these radical followers of the "religion of peace," so Borders is playing it safe--more politically safe than physically safe, it appears. Here is what they are afraid of happening in their stores, I guess:

The cartoons, which were reprinted in European and American papers in January and February, sparked a wave of protests around the Islamic world. Protesters were killed in some of the most violent demonstrations and several European embassies were attacked.

Borders, congratulations. The terrorists got a bit of what they wanted out of you.

Director George Lucas is worried about American "cultural imperialism."

You can read the original article here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008136

Here are my comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Director George Lucas is worried about American "cultural imperialism."

A bit late for that, isn't it, Mr. Lucas? Are you feeling guilty, or what? And just what\ exactly do you mean by "American?" What is this "American culture" like? And what is this "imperialism" thing? Is this culture "forced" onto people at gunpoint, or do they choose it and embrace it, in the same way that Americans do?



In a speech to the World Affairs Council in San Francisco on Wednesday, he cited the lifestyles portrayed on "Dallas" as an example of how Hollywood irresponsibly infects the minds of poor people overseas.
"They say, 'That is what I want to be' . . . [and] that destabilizes a lot of the world," AFP quotes him as saying.

So, you found a group of star-struck "yes-men" in Frisco to talk to, did you ? Perhaps you can ask them for plot clues for your next movie. (Hint--midichlorians were a stupid idea, and Jar Jar was pathetic.)
When speaking to this group of caring folk (many of whom are not likely to be people of color or of little wealth), which poor people were you talking about specifically, Lucas?
How many of them are you actually referring to?
How, precisely, does them saying "We want everything that you have, Mr. Lucas," destabilize the world?

So here we have an unnamed, unnumbered group of people whose lives are so miserable that they want to be like Dallas characters. EVERYBODY knows these people exist--who? Where? If they even have a TV, do they have no local shows from their own country and in their own language? Are these poor people so stupid that they can't tell what is real? Do they really believe that J.R. is an example of a typical American, or that American Women are all like those on Sex And The City? Do these unnamed folk really believe that all American women are Desperate Housewives, or Married With Children?
Ah, but they do know that they are poor and miserable, especially when compared to people on Dallas. Whose fault is it that they are so miserable and poor? Quick quiz--
A) Their own;
B) Their own government's fault;
C) The greedy dictators that run their governments;
D) people like Quentin Tarantino and Tom Cruise;

If you feel, Mr. Lucas, that what you are doing is so bad, why do you keep doing it? Or are the messages you send so much better than the ones you criticize?
Do you really feel that the world revolves around Hollywood and the American entertainment media? You seem to be deprecating things like Bollywood in India, that produces wildly popular films that have nothing to do with American culture or values.


U.S. filmmakers should be more careful about the messages they send, Mr. Lucas added.

But you can't have it both ways, Mr. Lucas. You claim filmmakers should be more careful about the messages they send, but then when anybody complains about the messages or content that is sent out, Hollywood types cry, "Censorship! Evil! I want my Freedom of Speech!"
You claim that films don't influence people to be violent (no matter what the content or messages are), but then you claim the films do influence people to want to be unrealistically affluent?

Which is it?


Marketers, too, presumably, since a lot of poor people in other countries probably see Mr. Lucas's "Star Wars" line of products and think: "That is what I want to have."


If it's good enough to sell to Americans, why isn't it good enough to sell to Pakistanis, or Nigerians, or Indonesians?

Sorry, George, that Bantha don't hunt.