January 27, 2007
Not perfect, therefore not good...
I spoke on campuses recently and listened to a number of students discuss issues of immigration, national identify, and the old race/class/gender conundrum. What struck me were two things: the unwillingness of young Americans in the audience to define, much less in thought or speech to defend their civilization. And I noted the paradoxical criticism of the United States by those who have just arrived on our shores.
Why would any wish to come to a country that they almost immediately fault—that takes more legal immigrants alone than all other countries combined? Is it that such contrariness earns acceptance from our own cynical and nihilistic elite? As I pointed out to these audiences, rarely do Americans in turn define newcomers here by the sins of their homeland.
Imagine, I went on, if Chinese students were reminded that the antecedents of their current government since 1945 murdered or starved to death 70 million of their own?
Should the Indian immigrant be reminded of suttee and the caste system?
The students seemed a little stunned, but had picked up the current American campus trait of thinking that if the United States can be shown not to be perfect, it is therefore not good—and that no one would dare to question the moral principles, or consistency, by which they press their own moralistic attack on the United States...
That last sentence is SO true. It's addlepated logic, and it is applied endlessly to the United States (and Israel.) Abu Ghraib shows that America is bad, and no amount of good can weigh against that, or is even allowed to be considered. Meanwhile hundreds of countries do far worse stuff routinely, with no criticism from the same people.
And one can't question the principles or standards on which the attacks are based, because they are never openly avowed. Leftists and fake-pacifists just assume the mantle of morality, and the right to criticize. (And to not be criticized in return—that would be "hate-mongering.")
And they keep raising the bar higher and higher.
Posted by John Weidner at January 27, 2007 07:36 AMPeople come to the US because that is where the money is, that is the reason that anyone came.
And they complain because they can, it is one of the ideals that make great countries great. You can do the same thing in most of the advanced countries of the world, not just the US.
Complaints are what make things happen, diverse views by diverse people creating what's next and leaving what was behind as it has always been and always will.
Posted by: Poetic badger at January 27, 2007 02:41 PMI'm with Badger. If our kids cannot even articulate what we as a civilization are all about and the immigrants, on the other hand, can manage a coherent criticism–bully for the immigrants. Question for John: Doesn't the host country normally benefit in the long run from immigration?
Posted by: Frank at January 27, 2007 07:15 PMBenefit? Of course. I've never suggested otherwise.
And I'm all for coherant criticism. But the sort of reflexive campus criticism Hanson seems to be writing about doesn't cohere. At least if it's the same kind I've encountered.
It doesn't have any standards or measures that are applied consistently. And it isn't based on principles. The "morals" are just conjured up from the zeitgeist.
And it usually isn't any kind of attempt to build a better America. In fact it's often pathological, a sort of repetitive tick. Everything about middle-America is bad, and the critic doesn't have to make any argument. He can just say "Texas," or "Baptist," or "Bush," or "Walmart," and be greeted by laughter, or sympathetic groans. No wit needed.
Posted by: John Weidner at January 27, 2007 08:51 PMChristians (and the Conservatives in general) have been negligent and niggardly in making investments in the Third World. The Soviets used to sell very cheaply editions of Lenin and Marx et al in the campuses of Indian Universities (and no doubt similar campuses all over Third World).
Christians (and Conservatives in general) have been negligent and niggardly in investing in Third World. The Soviets used to sell very cheap editions of Lenin and Marx in campuses for all major universities in India (and doubtless other Third World countries).
But where are editions of Belloc and Chaleston?. They who speak most clearly about Faith in Modern Age are unknown in Third World. The Christians do not make use of their vast intellectual and cultural resources.
Why isnt Vatican using Satelite radio to Arabia, Persia and South Asia in
Arabic, Persian and Urdu?.
Why not use magnificant and spirtual
Church music to move people in Third World?
Conservatives tend not to want to throw their money down a hole, which is often what "investment in the Third World" comes down to. Get rid of some of those Marxism-'n'-Islamism loving thugs that rule many countries in the Third World and then you'll see your precious "investments."
As for Christians not doing enough, you're talking out of your hat. The Third World is inundated with Christian missionaries, Christian charity groups, and Christianity is rivalling Islam as a growing faith (which is one of the reasons for the Muslim atrocities in the Sudan, etc.) on that continent.
I don't know where you are sending in your internet missives from, but wherever it is has enough capital behind it to enable you to either own or have access to a computer, which means you can't be starving in a ditch. So what have you done for the troubled Third World besides grouse that other people aren't measuring up to your standards?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 29, 2007 03:52 AMWhat else is US doing in Iraq but investing in Third World. Do you oppose it?.
It has been said that Islamism is bred out of Marxism. The Soviets deliberately planted Marxism in Third World as a form of war against West.
The West has mostly ignored this war but now it has blown up at West;s own face.
