Blankley Going Where Wrong Men Had Gone Before
Washington Times Opinion Editor Tony Blankley gives a helpfully clear demonstration of how some conservatives are convinced that the War on Terror is only winnable if we enthusiastically scale back American liberties. Starting off, persistently enough, with a 21st century update to that world-beating war strategy, Japanese internment:
During World War II, the country was faced with the prospect of large numbers of people -- again identifiable by ethnicity, not conduct -- who were real or potential enemies.
The logic of the Supreme Court's opinion is applicable to the situation we face today. The court held that people ethnically connected to the war-makers are more likely to support them than are others -- and our country at war has a right to protect itself from this presumed higher risk of danger.
This is true regardless of the personal innocence of particular individuals.
Next, Blankley pines for a Supreme Court that helps persecute the insufficiently patriotic:
Members of the Jehovah's Witnesses were prosecuted during World War II for refusing to let their children recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a liberal, wrote the majority opinion in the case. He upheld the school expulsions and parental prosecutions for violating compulsory attendance laws.
Justice Frankfurter observed that "the mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."
This is particularly applicable to the situation we face today.
And why is a terrible 60-year-old spasm of paranoid injustice "applicable," suddenly? Brace yourself for the illiteral historical analogy:
But back then, as now, we were a nation of newly arrived immigrants, threatened from abroad and bombarded with destructive ideologies.
Then, it was communism and fascism. Today, it is multiculturalism, political correctness and, among the Muslim population, radical Islam.
Italics mine. That's right, Tony Blankley (an immigrant himself, by the way) just committed the Mother of all Godwins by comparing the two most murderous political ideologies in modern history to fucking "political correctness."
I'm beginning to suspect that the phrase "let loose the dogs of war" was meant to refer just as much to the yapping loons on the homefront.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
By the way, Blankley also conveniently omits that the Supreme Court reversed the Pledge of Allegiance decision in 1943, you know, after the US was actually involved in a war, by an 8-to-1 vote. (Frankfurter was the lone dissenter.) See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Here's a little excerpt from the Barnette concurrence by Justice Murphy kicking Frankfurter's ass:
Any spark of love for country which may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example of persuasion, not in force and compulsion, that the real unity of America lies.
Well, judging by that recent video threatening L.A., and Padilla, the American Taliban,etc., I'd say we're all "ethnically connected to the war-makers."
By the way, Blankley also conveniently omits that the Supreme Court reversed the Pledge of Allegiance decision in 1943, you know, after the US was actually involved in a war, by an 8-to-1 vote. (Frankfurter was the lone dissenter.) See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Here's a little excerpt from the Barnette concurrence by Justice Murphy kicking Frankfurter's ass:
Any spark of love for country which may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example of persuasion, not in force and compulsion, that the real unity of America lies.
Whenever someone refers at all favorably to Japanese internment, it is worth repeating the following sentence from the Army report that requested the action (I quote from memory):
"The very fact that no acts of sabotage have yet taken place is disturbing and confirming evidence that such actions will be taken."
With that sort of logic, of course, it's Katie bar the door.
And (he went on to quibble), it's "let slip the dogs of war."
Whenever someone refers at all favorably to Japanese internment, it is worth repeating the following sentence from the Army report that requested the action (I quote from memory):
"The fact that no acts of sabotage have yet taken place is disturbing and confirming evidence that such actions will be taken."
With that sort of logic, of course, it's Katie bar the door.
And (he went on to quibble), it's "let slip the dogs of war."
Whenever someone refers at all favorably to Japanese internment, it is worth repeating the following sentence from the Army report that requested the action (I quote from memory):
"The fact that no acts of sabotage have yet taken place is disturbing and confirming evidence that such actions will be taken."
With that sort of logic, of course, it's Katie bar the door.
And (he went on to quibble), it's "let slip the dogs of war."
By Blankley's logic, the senior management team at Halliburtion circa 1996, for instance, may be up for placement in reeducation camps, given their record of suppoort for Iraq's Baath regime during the embargo years of the 1990s. Where are their loyalties?
Then again, maybe Blankley himself is suspect given his high-level employment with an organization whose leader, Sun-Myung Moon, does business with North Korea.
Katie bar the door?
That he thinks it was a good idea to imprison Jehovah's Witnesses for not allowing their kids to recite the pledge of allegiance tells you everything you need to know about his conception of liberty.
But wait, I can see how elementary school children not reciting the pledge could help the nazi's and communists overthrow the US...and we all know that the hundred's of thousands of imprisoned Japanese did turn out to be spies. There tons of evidence, like, um, well you know.
Those who use a shameful and totally ineffective act from our past to justify equally shameful and ineffective acts in the present can only be described as ignorant fools.
Holy chit. Despite being among those who look askance at certain aspects of political correctness, I nevertheless blush at the company in which Blankley places it!!
Holy chit. Despite being among those who look askance at certain aspects of political correctness, I nevertheless blush at the company in which Blankley places it!!
Sorry for the double post. (Curse you, Reason server!)
Quoth the Blankley, "A total of 25,655 noncitizens living in the United States were interned or deported during the war years because of their ethnicity or nationality, rather than their words or conduct. They included 11,229 Japanese, 10,905 Germans, 3,278 Italians, 52 Hungarians, 25 Romanians, five Bulgarians and 161 other foreign nationals."
Quoth the Wikipedia, "The Japanese American internment refers to the exclusion and subsequent removal of approximately 112,000 to 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans, officially described as 'persons of Japanese ancestry,' 62 percent of whom were United States citizens, from the west coast of the United States during World War II to hastily constructed housing facilities called War Relocation Camps in remote portions of the nation's interior."
So A) there were a lot more 'noncitizens' interned during the war years than Blankley admits, and B) they were joined by approximately one metric shitload of persons who fall into the class of 'citizens'.
Does anybody have a sudden urge to start making Che-style ringer-tees that say "Charge (or release) Jose Padilla"?
And Blanley and his ilk continue to ignore stuff like, you know, the historical record, such as this.
Damn, nice find, Phil. That's pretty scary. And also goes to show you we've had corrupt fucks trying to use the guise of patriotism and security for a long time. No doubt our founding fathers envisioned it and tried to keep it from happening.
Sorry we've failed you, guys. :/
I love Blankley's logic. The US gov't used ethnic internment and surveillance in WWII, a war that most people regard as worth fighting, THEREFORE, we should use those tactics today. Never mind the question of "did those tactics actually make us safer, even in WWII?" Because they were used during a good and just war, then, VIA OSMOSIS, they are also good and just tactics.
Truly a frightening piece of work here.
Reminds me of something we used to say back in college:
Postulate A) We Have Radios.
Postulate B) There are tiny, killer robots in space.
Logical Conclusion: I must cover my windows in tin-foil.
No, we weren't high, long story.
DaveInBigD,
The internment of WWII was alien detention. As stated in the article, alien detention has always been accepted practice in times of hostilities. It remains so. The 25,000 figure is probably about right and includes the ethnic groups indicated.
The 120,000 figure includes those forced into camps as a result of Relocation which required an Executive Order and was specific to WWII. Japanese-Americans (perhaps just West Coast) and some Inuit(Aleut)-Americans were forced into Relocation camps.
Blankley has done the impossible; he has made Malkin look almost intellegent by comparison.
(Almost, but not quite...)
Oh boy, D Anglehorne's going off again:
"They weren't interred, they were relocated. To camps. This distinction is enormously important, but I'm not going to tell you why. Really makes you think."
Those damned Jehovah's Witnesses! How did they get such preferential treatment; getting their kids expelled from public schoools!
If you are against Japanese internment, you are objectively pro-Japan.
...D Anglehorne's...
You certainly know how to discredit yourself.
"They weren't interred, they were relocated. To camps. This distinction is enormously important, but I'm not going to tell you why. Really makes you think."
The distinction is important and this discussion reveals why. Comparisons are inevitably made between then and now and the comparisons are always between apples and pineapples. Resident aliens can be detained without any new authorizations while a repetition of Relocation would require another Executive Order. Unless, that is, the laws have changed between then and now. Have they?
I feel dirty, like I just read what Ann Coulter would be like if she weren't so crass.
OK, D Anghelone, let's just agree that there was nothing illegal about sending non-citizens to camps, and that it was, at least hypothetically, justified. If nothing else then for the sake of argument.
And let's agree that the word used to describe sending a foreign citizen to a camp is not the correct word to use when describing the act of sending a US citizen to a camp against his will and without evidence of a crime. Legalese and all.
What's your point?
You say that doing that to US citizens would require a new executive order. So? A President could always sign one again. And even if he signed it, that would hardly be Constitutional. Yes, yes, I know, it's (supposedly) perfectly legal to send non-citizens to camps. But what about the Constitutional guarantees of due process for citizens?
Really, I don't get your point. If all you want to do is remind us that this can't happen unless the President decides so, well, pardon me for being underwhelmed by the point.
This blog complains about the response by the federal government, but cannot even fix its own server. Based on the experiences I have had on University campuses with the PC indoctrination crowd, I do not think Blankley is that far off. These people are fanatics. Free speech- as long as you are saying things they agree with. Diversity-as long as you belong to the accepted group. Jeez, at least I can discuss my libertarian philosophy with most of the Conservative and Republican students. I talked to liberals about my philosophy and they wet their pants and look at me like I am an alien. The liberals on campus are the most closed minded people I have encountered. I can at least get a good discusion out of the conservatives.
This blog complains about the response by the federal government, but cannot even fix its own server. Based on the experiences I have had on University campuses with the PC indoctrination crowd, I do not think Blankley is that far off. These people are fanatics. Free speech- as long as you are saying things they agree with. Diversity-as long as you belong to the accepted group. Jeez, at least I can discuss my libertarian philosophy with most of the Conservative and Republican students. I talked to liberals about my philosophy and they wet their pants and look at me like I am an alien. The liberals on campus are the most closed minded people I have encountered. I can at least get a good discusion out of the conservatives.
I'm reminded of an interview I read with Michael Crichton back when Disclosure came out, when he said his next book was going to be about the greatest danger facing America today: Political Correctness.
I'm reminded of an interview I read with Michael Crichton back when Disclosure came out, when he said his next book was going to be about the greatest danger facing America today: Political Correctness.
After brief detours to warn America about the evils of packs of reanimated dinosaurs and time travel, he did vividly illustrate the sinister enviro-Hollywood cabal dedicated to causing monstrous weather disasters to further the cause and claims of 90% of climate scientists. If only GWB had listened!
Aaaah,
Matt Welch, you magnificent bastard!
Aaaah,
Matt Welch, you magnificent bastard!
Matt,
I have been reading your stuff for a while now but that is easily your most hysterical post ever. As are self-righteous comments on this blog.
But back then, as now, we were a nation of newly arrived immigrants, threatened from abroad and bombarded with destructive ideologies.
Then, it was communism and fascism. Today, it is multiculturalism, political correctness and, among the Muslim population, radical Islam.
Italics mine. That's right, Tony Blankley (an immigrant himself, by the way) just committed the Mother of all Godwins by comparing the two most murderous political ideologies in modern history to fucking "political correctness."
1. Who the fuck cares whether Tony is an immigrant or not?
2. It is safe to assume, once your hysterical high wears off, that he did not mean a direct or literal comparison, but rather an metaphor, noting (rather correctly, I believe) that some of the most destructive ideologies-cum-threats to the West today are political-correctness and multiculturalism along with the obvious Islamo-fascism.
Big fuckin' deal.
And yet Tony can't find a word about his immigrant Boss and WT owner, "Rev." Moon and his arms dealings with the North Koreans.
Quick, mention political correctness and liberals to whip up the base. And what, he couldn't swipe at Hillary in the same editorial? He must be getting old.
thoreau said: "...it was, at least hypothetically, justified."
This is your problem, thoreau. You can't consider what is written for the voices in your head. You, and other pc libertarians, are like the liberals described above by TomT.
Piddling distinction? Not worth considering? How about another piddling distinction: whether Gitmo is U.S. soil. Why is that distinction being fought over?
D Anghelone-
Well, as I understand it, the issue of Gitmo matters because the Executive branch is trying to claim that it can do what it wants there without scrutiny from the other branches of government.
Do you have a point to make about rounding up US citizens and putting them in camps without any evidence of crimes or conspiracy to commit crimes?
Maybe our resident legal scholar could take a break from defining the word "serf" and give D Anghelone a good working over?
Maybe our resident legal scholar could take a break from defining the word "serf" and give D Anghelone a good working over?
Thoreau--
The word "resident" implies that he actually LIVES here, which in turn implies that this Website is an actual, physical place where one can live, as opposed to a bunch of pixels and magnetic pulses going over various lines of communication.
I suggest you teach yourself the difference between the real world and cyberspace before you embarrass yourself further.
By the way, Thoreau and all others who will be meeting in NYC this Saturday, I've just thought of a way we can pass the time when we get there: the Jean Hakluyt Gunnels Drinking Game.
Here's how it works: Person A makes a statement. Person B finds a way to deliberately misinterpret it, and accuses Person A of being a liar. If so, Person A must take a drink; however, but Person B has to take a drink if he CAN'T think of a misinterpretation.
Like so:
THOREAU: Whew! That train ride into New York took longer than I thought! My wife and I thought we'd NEVER get here!
ME: Thoreau, saying "Never" implies that time would actually come to an end before you got here. Even a simpleton would understand that in the worst-case scenario, wherein the train came to a complete standstill and you had to WALK the remaining three hundred miles into Manhattan, you would still make it here well before the end of eternity. I suggest you teach yourself the difference between "never" and "longer than I expected" before you embarrass yourself further.
THOREAU: (drinks.)
Last one sober enough to stand up wins.
TomT:
"This blog complains about the response by the federal government, but cannot even fix its own server."
Much as I hate the moveable type problems, why in god's name would problems with blog comment software have ANY bearing whatsoever on whether it is valid to complain about the government?
"Based on the experiences I have had on University campuses with the PC indoctrination crowd, I do not think Blankley is that far off. These people are fanatics. Free speech- as long as you are saying things they agree with. Diversity-as long as you belong to the accepted group."
"Not that far off"? "NOT THAT FAR OFF"? He is about as "far off" as you can get. You don't like the PC crowd? Then don't talk to them. With 20th century communism, however, millions of people didn't have that choice. Once you show me how many people political correctness killed, then I'll entertain thoughts of Blankley being even in the same ballpark as reality.
Tom, the fact that you are unable to draw a clear and definite distinction between two of the most murderous political ideologies in history, and, as you put it, not being able to discuss your supposedly libertarian political beliefs with university liberals, just goes to show how utterly dishonest you are. Hmm, murdering millions of people and robbing them of all their freedom, versus, not being able to civilly discuss politics with certain people. And you claim that Blankley is "not far off"? Jesus. Do you think before you type?
yeah, seriously. people - especially white conservatives - need to grow a fucking pair of balls and stop crying like little bitches. oh, so someone calls you a racist or a sexist! big fucking whoopty doo dah!
i go to a graduate program that is 95% female and 80% black, latino, asian, etc etc etc. they're almost all left of center, with a few religious exceptions, and i get along just fine, even if i think they're crazy statist bastards who will doom us to a world of mediocre television and harrison bergeronisms, and they think i'm insane.
do i whip out my dick and bop people on the head with it while screaming "gold standard! gold standard!" only on request. and that's the key, here - you can only do that stuff on request.
"some of the most destructive ideologies-cum-threats to the West today are political-correctness and multiculturalism"
How may health clinics have been bombed by Afro-Centrists?
How many federal buildings have been levelled by people who spell women with a y?
D Angelhone,
Why is that distinction being fought over?
Because of Johnson v. Eisentrager and the claims regarding federal jurisdiction contained therein.
Jennifer,
Person B finds a way to deliberately misinterpret it, and accuses Person A of being a liar.
(a) I didn't misinterpret your statement. Your statement was erroneous (and ridiculous) on its face. Further, note that when you asked the question in a more sound manner I willingly answered it. Really, casting yourself as a victim is rather obnoxious.
(b) You did fabricate a claim, namely that I insisted that Wal-Mart never encouraged folks to seek out welfare. See my comments in the other thread as to why you are in error.
But joe, don't you see, if Kerry were President, it . . . .
Oh, never mind. Blankley is a tool.
thoreau,
Well, the Executive is claiming that its war powers include the ability to detain folks at will, however, its clearly the Congress' call as to how individuals will be dealt with in the long term. In other words, over a short time span the Executive may have a meritorious claim (call it the "repel attack" power), but that power lessens considerably over even a moderate amount of time. of course we live in a world where the Congress has granted (or simply given up without comment) to the Executive vast swaths of its power, so its not surprising that the Executive would claim that it has war powers far exceeding what the founders would have imagined.
joe,
The Black Panthers, SDS, Weather Underground, etc. all committed acts of terrorism. Of course, unlike Horowitz, I'm not going to ignorantly claim that they were the first American terrorist organization; that distinction can be left to other groups like the KKK, or even some of the individuals involved in the Masons during the early republic.
All right, Hak. Mea culpa. Before my post of yesterday nobody had ever, ever used the word "serf" to mean anything other than its medieval meaning (or Russian meaning, pre-1864), and thus my comment about people being "serfs" could only be taken to mean that I thought Wal-Mart would bring about the re-introduction of a legal hereditary aristocracy.
Likewise, if I ever use the cliche "I felt like a deer caught in the headlights," this would make me a liar unless I were actually standing in the middle of a road, at night, on the verge of being struck by a car.
Hakluyt, you're stretching "political correctness and multiculturalism" pretty far, if you are defining it to include those groups. Those terms, like "postmodernism," are not just catchalls for the entirety of the left.
If Blankely had singled out Black Nationalism and Communism, those examples would at least be germaine, although severely outdated - Blankley did emphasize that he was talking about "today," and none of those groups have so much as bloodied anyone's nose in over a generation.
joe, I don't think -- and I shudder to find myself even appearing to defend this kind of scummery -- that Blankley is literally intending to mean "destructive" as in "blowing shit up and shooting people." My assumption is that he means that allowing multicultural ideas and values to proliferate, particularly among cultures that don't assimilate completly, will eventually subsume what we consider to be Western culture and its benefits and ideas. Which is still mostly crap, albeit more defensible than the other thing.
joe,
Well, since you mentioned "afro-centrism," it was a fair comment; after all, afro-centrism is part of an intellectual mileau that has included more radical, violent elements like the Black Panthers, the SDS, etc.
Of course afro-centrism (e.g., crap like "Black Athena") does do violence to the historical record.
...and none of those groups have so much as bloodied anyone's nose in over a generation.
Well, I could have mentioned MOVE I guess.
joe,
I'm not taking Blankley seriously, BTW.
I think that Blankley has it all wrong. If you are seriously looking at a policy of detainment, you should start with neocons and the entire caucasian segment of the population. After all, it wasn't an Islamic Middle Easterner that detonated a massive bomb in Oklahoma City. This is the only way that the 'War on Terror' can be won!
D Anghelone
I thought I had understood the distinction you were making between internment and relocation. I have never interpreted your making that distinction as defending the relocation but a lot of others seem to have.
I think you might clear up everyone's confusion by answering the following question.
In your opinion, was the relocation of the American citizens of Japanese ethnic origin a good thing and a proper policy?
Incidentally J. Edgar Hoover thought it was not. He believed the FBI could contain any subversion with surveillance of the Japanese population.
Isaac-
I have tried very hard not to conclude that D Anghelone supported the forcible relocation of US citizens of Japanese origin without due process. Every time this subject comes up I have tried not to accuse him of such.
I'm still not jumping to that conclusion. But I wish he would stop being so obscure. He had a valid point about the legal distinction between internment of non-citizens and relocation of citizens. But every time this comes up and I acknowledge that distinction he doesn't just say "OK, glad we cleared that up. That's all." No, he keeps hinting that there's another important point to recognize, and that my biases make it harder for me to recognize that point.
I wish he'd stop dancing around it and just tell us what the bigger point is.
Part of it may be that he thinks people are drawing comparisons between measures taken in the present and the forcible relocation of US citizens of Japanese origin without due process. No doubt somebody out there is, but most of us here have not, recognizing that nothing even approaching that scale has been done to US citizens. He may be arguing with a point not being made here.
Sort of like yesterday, when somebody criticized Walmart and everybody got angry and said "Well, everybody else who criticizes a business calls for regulation. So we just sort of assumed..."
Isaac-
I have tried very hard not to conclude that D Anghelone supported the forcible relocation of US citizens of Japanese origin without due process. Every time this subject comes up I have tried not to accuse him of such.
I'm still not jumping to that conclusion. But I wish he would stop being so obscure. He had a valid point about the legal distinction between internment of non-citizens and relocation of citizens. But every time this comes up and I acknowledge that distinction he doesn't just say "OK, glad we cleared that up. That's all." No, he keeps hinting that there's another important point to recognize, and that my biases make it harder for me to recognize that point.
I wish he'd stop dancing around it and just tell us what the bigger point is.
Part of it may be that he thinks people are drawing comparisons between measures taken in the present and the forcible relocation of US citizens of Japanese origin without due process. No doubt somebody out there is, but most of us here have not, recognizing that nothing even approaching that scale has been done to US citizens. He may be arguing with a point not being made here.
Sort of like yesterday, when somebody criticized Walmart and everybody got angry and said "Well, everybody else who criticizes a business calls for regulation. So we just sort of assumed..."
Maybe some of you could help on the topic of "multiculturalism." It seems to be one of the latest conservative boogey men in the so-called "culture war" to which I have not been paying attention.
Every time I stop to consider a potential tangible meaning, I end up thinking conservatives are upset that tacos are available in school cafeterias. What is it and what is the real threat it poses?
Don't know how the double post happened. Sorry.
Patrick: Read and weep. If we allow a semicircular memorial to Flight 93, the Islamists have won!
But I wish he would stop being so obscure.
This is exactly my problem.
I wish he'd stop dancing around it and just tell us what the bigger point is.
That is why I just came out and asked the questions I did. Do you think we might get some clarification. I hope so.
As you might have noticed from my bitching about the use of the word "civilians" by police officers I tend to be a stickler about the use of language. For that reason I am sympathetic to the distinction between "internment" and "relocation".
The double posts seem to be a feature of the server or something. I tried posting several times yesterday but my wisdom is now lost in dark reaches of cyberspace. So sometimes it's doubles or even triples and sometimes none at all. Probably because it's free. 🙂
Patrick D.,
Well, given that multi-culturalism is often part of state-mandated government policy (the state is stepping in to preserve the cultural attributes of immigrants) it is problematic.
Patrick D.,
Well, given that multi-culturalism is often part of state-mandated government policy (the state is stepping in to preserve the cultural attributes of immigrants) it is problematic.
Patrick D.,
Well, given that multi-culturalism is often part of state-mandated government policy (the state is stepping in to preserve the cultural attributes of immigrants) it is problematic.
Phil,
Thanks for the link. Bizaare/funny discussion.
Hakluyt,
That's still pretty abstract. Can you be more specific with a couple of examples?
In your opinion, was the relocation of the American citizens of Japanese ethnic origin a good thing and a proper policy?
No.
How do you judge the relocation, to camps, of the Inuit?
I make a point of the distinction between alien detention and Relocation because it relates to present policies and future possibilities. The constant screaming about 120,000 Japanese-Americans having been thrown into internment camps obscures the issue and isn't all that much better than the screams about the secret FEMA camps in Times Square. If it ain't true then it ain't true.
And there were many more rights violations during WWII. And there is the issue of the Latin Americans, of Axis nation origin, essentially abducted to be placed in U.S. camps. But those things aren't discussed for the taboos of Malkinization.
Patrick D.,
It depends on the country in question, but it can vary from singular efforts like state support for media sources in the "mother" tongue of immigrants (see Australia) to Canada's diverse set of efforts to create a "multi-cutlural" (or bi-cultural depending on where you live in Canada) society.
D Anghelone-
You still haven't come out and told us what your point is on how any of this relates to present-day concerns. Until you state it explicitly instead of just raising questions and hinting that "there's something big there, man!" I'm going to conclude that you have nothing interesting to say on the matter.
Jumping in to describe what I thint "they" see multi-culturalism as:
Multi-culturalism is, at its base, a version of moral relativism. Their (insert foreign culture) culture and values are no better or worse than ours, on an absolute scale.
This is totally unacceptable to jingoists, etc., as "U.S.A. #1" is a truism and "American culture", "democracy" and "judeo-christian ethics" are the pinnacle of human achievement.
This is also extremely unacceptable to right wing statists, as shared cultural values are absolutely necessary to sustain a centralized state. In the absence of shared cultural values, the only thing that holds centralized states together is the use of force. Recent history shows that once you reach the point that the only thing holding your state together is force, things get pretty hairy. Especially for the political elite.
Finally, if we can't proclaim that our culture, politics, etc. are superior to all others, what justification do we have for using our military to impose it on other countries via "nation-building"?
Again, I see no danger with multi-culturalism as long as it isn't forced on me, so I'm trying to describe what I observe as an outsider.
thoreau,
As I recall, the heart of D Anghelone's beef is that other rights violations during WWII aren't given the exposure that the violations against Americans of Japanese descent are given.
Slight correction:
I can see the danger in moral relativism, but outside of certain values that I consider nearly universal (essentially, that physical aggression is bad), I don't see a problem with multi-culturalism that isn't enforced on unwilling populations.
Hakluyt,
What about the U.S.? What are some of the specific "multi-cultural" policies, attitudes, etc that conservatives believe threaten the U.S. and/or Western civilization?
Hakluyt-
I'd like to agree with you. But he keeps hinting that there are big implications for present day concerns, and my biases prevent me from understanding it. I have to conclude that there's more to his beef. I don't want to conclude the worst of him, so I won't unless he explicitly gives me reason to do so. But I have a hard time reaching any conclusions right now.
So, D Anghelone, please come out and explicitly tell me what the present-day implications are. This vague hinting is getting nowhere.
Hakluyt-
I'd like to agree with you. But he keeps hinting that there are big implications for present day concerns, and my biases prevent me from understanding it. I have to conclude that there's more to his beef. I don't want to conclude the worst of him, so I won't unless he explicitly gives me reason to do so. But I have a hard time reaching any conclusions right now.
So, D Anghelone, please come out and explicitly tell me what the present-day implications are. This vague hinting is getting nowhere.
Patrick D.,
For specific conservative criticisms of the U.S. my suggestion is that you look at the writings of Dinesh D'Souza (not someone I'm particularly fond of I might add).
What is it and what is the real threat it poses?
Multiculturalism has come to mean pretty much whatever the person saying it WANTS it to mean. It started out innocently enough--"Hey, let's have school history textbooks mention the fact that not everybody in America was a white Protestant male" but now it's just a mess. Some idiots who call themselves multiculturalists mean "All cultures are equal except Western culture, which is worse," but in the case of an asshole like Blankley, who uses multiculturalism as an evil bugaboo while explaining why racial internment camps really weren't a bad thing, it means "Holy shit, I'm expected to tolerate a person who looks different than me!"
Patrick D.,
For specific criticisms of the U.S. see the writings of Dinesh D'Souza (someone whom I'm not particularly fond of I might add).
Jennifer,
Actually, multiculturalism was a term thought up to describe the cultural framework of Switzerland. It went from a descriptive term to one infused with various policy goals in the 1970s.
Dinesh D'Souza??? L.O.L.!!!!!!
I've of heard of him for some reason. I'll search his name.
The reason I think this is hilarious is that, although I am not familiar with the "culture war", I am familiar with India. With a name like that, we can conclude that 1) as "Dinesh" he is likely of Indian descent and Hindu (or his parents intended him to be) and 2) as "D'Souza" he's got at least some Portugese blood via one of their old colonies/trading centers like Goa.
Basically, this guy is the PRODUCT of some pretty intimate "multi-culturalism."
Patrick D.,
I find his "back to the kitchen" views of women to be rather disconcerting. He writes a lot of red meat for conservatives to feast upon and gets paid handsomely for it.
Hak--
I didn't know that, but at any rate my answer was meant more to answer the question "What is multiculturalism when it's used now" rather than "What it historically was or later shall be."
For what it's worth, I agree it certainly is good for people--especially Americans--to realize that not everybody in the world looks and thinks and acts the way their immediate neighbors do, but too much of modern multiculturalism (and I"m referring to my teaching experience, especially), boils down to "Anything from outside our culture is better than anything from within it." That's where you find Shakespeare shoved out of literature curricula to make room for Aphra Behn (as opposed to, say, a curriculum where Shakespeare and Behn could co-exist), and I suspect that's the only reason Maya Angelou ever got published.
That's also where you get the weird contradiction in education: instead of saying, for example, "There were not many black or female writers in the old days, because blacks and females rarely HAD the opportunity to become writers," you get "The following writers, like Aphra Behn, were and are super-important, and yet simultaneously women were so oppressed that they were barely allowed to learn how to read."
I don't know if that made any sense at all. Damn, I'm tired today.
It still make more sense that Blankley and his supporters, though.
Jennifer,
Well, Aphra Behn was important because she along with Daniel Dafoe essentially created what we consider the novel, yet her work has largely been ignored over the years. Indeed, Dafoe acknolwedged the power of female writers at the time by writing one of my favorite pro-capitalist books - Roxana. 🙂 So yes, women were much maligned, but some women in English society (like their counterparts in the French salons of pre-revolutionary France) were able to carve out for themselves a powerful niche in society.
Hakluyt--
However, despite what the old textbook I had to teach liked to imply, Behn was NOT on a par with Shakespeare so far as her contributions to literature are concerned. How many common aphorisms and saying come from her work?
And the point I was making was: what is WRONG with saying, "Yes, historically women, blacks or other minorities did NOT make as big a contribution as did the guys in power, because they were forbidden from doing so," instead of lying and making it sound like they were always major players? It's like going to a history class and being told "Women have ALWAYS been allowed to vote in America, and in fact many important tie-breaking votes were cast by women," on the theory that if women know the truth about our former non-voting status we'll get all depressed and incapable of doing anything with our lives.
Jennifer,
But you are right, one should read Pope and Behn.
Jennifer,
Well, we get "philanderer" from Loveletters.... 🙂 Oroonoko was hugely influential throughout the 18th and into the 19th century. I'd say she was Dryden's rival at the time of her height in popularity. Her problem was that by the 19th century her work was viewed as too racy.
Hakluyt,
Checked out D'Souza's site. There's lots to sort through and I have not gotten to much of the "culture war" stuff yet. I read a piece on the Imperial Self. He doesn't seem to be wetting his pants over contemporary morality and ethics like most conservatives in that one. He does some subtle dancing around what I would consider significant issues regarding U.S. history vs. Western history but interesting stuff overall.
I am getting the sense that if he is really so popular among conservatives it is because they cherry-pick his writing. I've noticed they do the same with Bernard Lewis regarding the Middle East.
Thanks.
"Anything from outside our culture is better than anything from within it."
Geez, Jennifer, what grade were you teaching? This attitude was limited to a small group within the relatively isolated university environment when I left grad school many moons ago.
I don't think that everything done in the school system is a general "liberal" thing either. I've got a friend who is pretty liberal and gave up being a highly paid attorney to become a public school teacher. She is appalled at what she sees in schools in ways that would make conservatives applaud.
Patrick D--
Eleventh and twelfth grades. If you ever feel like losing even MORE faith in humanity, try being a British Literature teacher charged with rewriting the Brit-lit curriculum. . . .but "make sure you cover multicultural issues!" You know, all those famous Afro-Britannican writers from the thirteenth through nineteenth centuries.
So I replaced "Macbeth" with "Merchant of Venice," on the theory that Shylock's speech would give the curriculum some multiculti street cred. Of course, when I taught "Merchant" I ended up being accused of religious intolerance (against Christians, not Jews), but that's a whole other story.
Wow. Amazing to me that something as specific as British Lit would be offered to 11th and 12th graders at all (vs. just general English Lit) let alone be a cultural/political battlefield.
(D)o I whip out my dick and bop people on the head with it while screaming "gold standard! gold standard!"
Whew! I'll be months getting that little word picture out of my head...
look on the bright side: every time you hear someone say "gold standard" you're going duck, ain'tcha?
Patrick D.,
A brief definition of multiculturalism might be, the beleif that cultural diversity and the interactions between people of different cultures is a force for good in society. It follows from this belief that a society should not work towards the assimiliation of people fron different cultures (the melting pot model), but towards the preservation of cultural distinctiveness among a diverse population (the salad bowl model).
Joe,
Thanks for the input.
Still looking for some specific "multicultural" thing that logically leads to the destruction of the United States and/or civilization.
You still haven't come out and told us what your point is on how any of this relates to present-day concerns.
Uhh...that's the topic of the original post. Welch made the connection so ask him.
D Anghelone-
OK, fine, Welch is the one making the point about contemporary concerns.
What is the point of your previous posts? And can you phrase it in the form of declarative sentences? That might be helpful to people like me who are too dense to get the point behind your interesting questions.
No person can possibly be as dense as you pretend to be, thoreau.
Are you going to explain your point or not?
To everybody else:
Am I the only one who's having a hard time figuring out what his point is? I mean, in one post he said something about how other atrocities were ignored, which would seem like a plea for consideration of other groups. But his other posts say nothing about that. I'm trying not to jump to the most unfavorable conclusion, but he's not doing much to persuade me otherwise.
"Uhh...that's the topic of the original post. Welch made the connection so ask him."
No, D Anghelone. That was Blankley's connection.
thoreau,
"Am I the only one who's having a hard time figuring out what his point is?"
No. You're possibly the only one who is not assuming D Anghelone supports rounding up Muslims today like the U.S. did with the Japanese during WWII. By giving D Anghelone an opportunity to explicitly express an opinion you're being quite generous, imo.
As for me, I fully appreciate that policy toward Japanese Americans during WWII was, in practice, racist. If the formal security-related logic was more than window dressing, Japanese Americans would have been sharing their "relocation" quarters with more Italian Americans from the East Coast.
In terms of current applicability of such policies (including racial profiling), I assume that people who advocate them don't know what they are talking about. Blankley's "ethnicity" link demonstrates his ignorance. Being a Muslim has nothing to do with ethnicity or race. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American citizens and billions of non-Muslims around the planet who share an ethnicity with Muslims. If you toss in people who look like the stereotype of a Muslim, the number obviously jumps further.
You Gentiles try and relocate or detain me and my former co-religionists again and I'm coming out shooting.
You're possibly the only one who is not assuming D Anghelone supports rounding up Muslims today like the U.S. did with the Japanese during WWII. By giving D Anghelone an opportunity to explicitly express an opinion you're being quite generous, imo.
Generous? I've no need for his generosity or yours.
What the U.S. did with the Japanese during WWII? Not the Japanese-Americans but the Japanese? Japanese in Tokyo? Japanese in Manila? Japanese on Attu and Kiska? Resident Japanese detained? Or are you referring to the Japanese-Americans covered by EO 9066? You are just not getting this.
As for explicitness, I was explicitly against what was done to Japanese-Americans during WWII.
So what do you want?
Rounding up all Muslim non-citizens in the US?
Total war against Arab countries?
Nuke some Arab countries? (You did, after all, bring up what was done to Japan in WWII.)
Alright, I crossed the line that I'd said I didn't want to cross. But he kept on talking about what was done to the Japanese and the distinction between relocation and internment and whatnot. I can only go so long before I draw the obvious inference.
I apologize if I'm wrong.
thoreau
I too am having a hard time understanding his point. And I do sympathize with the distinction between what was done to th nisei as opposed to what was done with the nationals of the enemy state.
Incidentally there were also some second and third-generation germans and italians interned. But nowhere near on the scale as the nisei.
Isaac-
As he'll no doubt remind you, they weren't interned, they were relocated. Internment is a word used to describe what's done to nationals of an enemy state.
As to the significance of proper vocabulary: I'm fine with adherence to linguistic conventions when such adherence is an aid to communication and clarity. But earlier this year it took several dozen posts to get that linguistic distinction out of him. And as soon as I figured out his point, he started throwing up lots of vague hints about other points. He may want to claim the linguistic high ground here, but he's done nothing to facilitate communication.
I apologize if I'm wrong.
It's not that you are wrong but that you are wrong-headed. We libertarians are supposed to be about preserving and expanding liberty and not witch-hunting racism. It is to positive end that we look to the past and compare with the present.
I've been lambasted for this before but I again suggest a more comprehensive look at the U.S. history of abridging freedom. More Jeffrey Rogers Hummel and less Ward Churchill, please.
thoreau, have you ever had a salesman come to your door, and refuse to tell you the price, even when you ask him directly?
There's a huge difference between internment and relocation. It's enormously important that you grasp the difference. Why? Well, I'm just sayin'.
"Still looking for some specific "multicultural" thing that logically leads to the destruction of the United States and/or civilization." Some people are uncomfortable with people who are different from them. Some people can only be comfortable with people who are different from them if they are marked as subordinate to the "unmarked" people. People like that are typically fear-based, and those who wish to appeal to them often invent scary scenarios. Like terrorist insurgencies, gay people recruiting your son, and your daughter having her genitals mutilated.
There's a huge difference between internment and relocation. It's enormously important that you grasp the difference. Why? Well, I'm just sayin'.
Because, as I said, internment had always been legal and remains so. No extraordinary measures needed.
thoreau
In fact I saw my error the instant I posted.
D Anghelone
Thankyou. I believe I have the answer I want. I do appreciate your raising the point of the difference. And I for one never thought you were defending the treatment of the nisei (a la Malkin). On the other hand I sometimes found your statements somewhat murky. Now if the goal was to stimulate thought that is fine. But that means your have your work cut out when dealing with someone as obtuse as I.
"do i whip out my dick and bop people on the head with it while screaming "gold standard! gold standard!" only on request. and that's the key, here - you can only do that stuff on request."
Hahahahahahhahahhahaha. God, I know this is a serious discussion, but that just got my funny bone really bad. I can not continue until the tears clear from my eyes.
D Anghelone,
"I've no need for his generosity or yours."
None offered from here.
"What the U.S. did with the Japanese during WWII? Not the Japanese-Americans but the Japanese? Japanese in Tokyo? Japanese in Manila? Japanese on Attu and Kiska? Resident Japanese detained? Or are you referring to the Japanese-Americans covered by EO 9066?"
Japanese-Americans. I should have been specific.
"As for explicitness, I was explicitly against what was done to Japanese-Americans during WWII."
Indeed you were. My apologies.
"We libertarians are supposed to be about preserving and expanding liberty and not witch-hunting racism. It is to positive end that we look to the past and compare with the present."
Agreed, as far as such comparisons are relevant and useful. Blankley claims that real or potential enemies under current circumstances are "identifiable by ethnicity." While this may or may not have been the case in WWII, it is not the case today.
Many people, including most conservatives, rightly point out that today's war is different than any we have fought in the past. It would be refreshing if they actually embraced the implications of that observation and stopped trying to use WWII as a meaningful point of reference.