# Multiculturalism vs Assimilation



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Back in the early 90's, I wrote this statement, posted it on an "Issues" site on which I was a member, and afixed it outside of my cubical at work...

*The most dangerous threat to the Security, Welfare, and Future of the United States of America is the concept, development, and promotion of Multiculturalism.*

The forces were at play then to ingrain this into our nation. And over the past six years, this has been accelerated. Once it takes a solid hold, which it is doing, the end of this nation, as designed by the Founders, is at hand as seen in this article.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/its-official-multiculturalism-now-trumps-americanism/


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

E pluribus unum- Latin for "Out of many, *one*"
*One* nation, *One* language, *One* people. Period. Assimilation not Balkanization. Multiculturalism will be the death of our "Constitutional Republic". There are far too many places in this country where you feel that you are in a foreign nation. It wouldn't bother me a bit if all publications from books to newspapers along with all broadcasts to be in English only.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> E pluribus unum- Latin for "Out of many, *one*"
> *One* nation, *One* language, *One* people. Period. Assimilation not Balkanization. Multiculturalism will be the death of our "Constitutional Republic". There are far too many places in this country where you feel that you are in a foreign nation. It wouldn't bother me a bit if all publications from books to newspapers along with all broadcasts to be in English only.


*E pluribus unum- Latin for "Out of many, one"*
Not according to AlGore. In 1992, at a prestigious New England university, he echoed that E pluribus unum meant from one to many. But then that comes as no surprise. He also didn't recognize busts of our Founders, including George Washington, at Monticello.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Although I insist upon assimilation, I also understand the importance of preserving the culture-of-origin and the language-of-origin, because they are part of history.

It is up to our schools to produce assimilated citizens, but, at the same time, it is up to the parents and grandparents to keep history, and the antecedent culture and language, alive and well in the face of assimilation.
Historically, the Japanese and Koreans who immigrated here have done very well with that. Their children are fully assimilated, but have also gone to after-school, privately-run cultural institutions where the mother tongue and culture is taught.
Some other immigrant families, my ex-wife's for example, also assimilated well into the "new world" of the American society outside their homes, while continuing to speak their native languages, and practice their native cultures, within their homes.

As a side issue, I am bewildered by the availability of foreign-language ballots to be used in US elections. To become a US citizen, you must first exhibit proficiency in English. So why can't legally-naturalized ex-foreigners use English-language ballots?

By the same token, while I can understand foreign-language signage on foreign-goods and foreign-foods stores, when I see foreign-language signage on "ordinary" stores, it drives me crazy. A perfect example is the signage on what used to be neighborhood groceries in Manhattan, which are now almost all Spanish-language _bodegas_.

If the US permits the mother culture to take precedence over assimilation, as it now seems to be doing as the result of perverted Political Correctness, we face the risk of breeding warring alien factions, rather than patriotic US citizens.
For instance, how are immigrant Turks to get along with immigrant Armenians and Kurds, if all three groups are permitted to put their own cultures before America's? And think of the Islamic "need" for separatist, Sharia law in the US.

Diversity must not be allowed to cause divisiveness.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Assimilation is basic state-craft. It has very little to do with 'cultural diversity'. The concepts are intended to work at different levels.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Although I insist upon assimilation, I also understand the importance of preserving the culture-of-origin and the language-of-origin, because they are part of history.
> 
> It is up to our schools to produce assimilated citizens, but, at the same time, it is up to the parents and grandparents to keep history, and the antecedent culture and language, alive and well in the face of assimilation.
> Historically, the Japanese and Koreans who immigrated here have done very well with that. Their children are fully assimilated, but have also gone to after-school, privately-run cultural institutions where the mother tongue and culture is taught.
> ...


Exactly. Where lies the allegiance? Instead of one nation under God, we are becoming a Balkanized society with all of the dangers and pitfalls of such a mess. The glue that holds a people together is their commonality... in language, history, culture, traditions, and institutions. Multiculturalism is a road to self-destruction.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Although I insist upon assimilation, I also understand the importance of preserving the culture-of-origin and the language-of-origin, because they are part of history.


Absolutely. If total assimilation is to be fought for, though, then all Italian Districts and China-towns must be razed and coffee-colored housing inserted. But no thanks. Keep the diversity there.



Steve M1911A1 said:


> As a side issue, I am bewildered by the availability of foreign-language ballots to be used in US elections. To become a US citizen, you must first exhibit proficiency in English. So why can't legally-naturalized ex-foreigners use English-language ballots?


.
This has more to do with "why won't America decide on an 'official language?' " because, actually, there ISN'T an Official Language. Weird but true.



Steve M1911A1 said:


> Diversity must not be allowed to cause divisiveness.


Again, abso-frikkin-lutely! THAT is the over-riding requirement. And the most difficult balancing act.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> ...This has more to do with "why won't America decide on an 'official language?' " because, actually, there ISN'T an Official Language. Weird but true...


Yeah. I have always found that to be kinda silly.
But the Progressives keep vetoing the idea, when it comes up in both Congress and most state legislatures.
I put it down as just another absurd "Political Correctness run amok" stupidity.



SailDesign said:


> ...And [maintaining diversity without causing divisiveness is] the most difficult balancing act.


I cannot see why it has to be a "balancing act."
English, American government ("civics"), US and state history, and American culture, are all still supposed to be taught in our schools. Just consult any state's official school curriculum guidelines and requirements, and you'll see that it's true.
So then if "old country" language, history, culture, and even government is either taught at home, or in private, after-school academies, the two issues receive the appropriate separate, proportional and unequal emphasis that permits assimilation without any loss of the immigrant's underlying culture.

For instance, my ex-wife is state-certificated to teach lower ("grammar") school here in the US, and "home economics" in US high schools. That means that she was proven competent in English vocabulary, grammar, and usage, as well as in basic-school US history, arithmetic, and several other studies.
But her native language was Greek, which is extremely unlike (although related to) English, and also she learned her English in a full-immersion setting, having been dropped into a US public school at age 10, understanding only Greek and a small amount of very antique Spanish (_Ladino_ - Spanish-based "Yiddish"). She was the one and only Greek speaker for miles around. "Learn or die."
Meanwhile, she spoke Greek and Ladino at home, although her parents, soon to be US citizens, helped as much as they could with her English lessons. She learned Greek customs and culture at home, while learning US culture and customs in school. None of this led to any kind of conflict. Today she is a fully-assimilated US citizen.
(And, by the way, her parents, who continued to think of themselves as ethnically Greek, were proud of their English, and never, ever used a Greek-language or Spanish-language ballot to vote.)


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

The balancing act is knowing when, and how much, of the Mother Culture to retain, and how much assimilation is enough.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:


> If the US permits the mother culture to take precedence over assimilation, as it now seems to be doing as the result of perverted Political Correctness, we face the risk of breeding warring alien factions, rather than patriotic US citizens.
> For instance, how are immigrant Turks to get along with immigrant Armenians and Kurds, if all three groups are permitted to put their own cultures before America's? And think of the Islamic "need" for separatist, Sharia law in the US.


Absolutely! Just one of the reasons that I am so adamantly opposed to multiculturalism. Then there's the issue as to which country would they swear allegiance to? In time of war this would be critical if this country was at war with one of those nations. Another is the fact that they could be easily manipulated because of the lack of knowledge of our history or culture. In other words they may think that the freedoms that they did not have in their home country is the same here. They may think that a dictatorship is normal and they are okay with it. They may have the attitude "well that's not the way it was done where I came from".



> Diversity must not be allowed to cause divisiveness.


But it does, but it does, always has and always will. There will always be the Al Sharpton's, Jesse Jackson's, Sheila Jackson Lee, Elijah Cummings, Luis Gutiérrez, La Raza (the race) the black militant in the White House and their devout worshipers. All race baiters and hustlers. They thrive on divisiveness and racism, where would any of them be without it? They love fanning the flames, the more the country is divided, the more powerful they become. One already made it to the highest office in the land.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

desertman said:


> ...There will always be the Al Sharpton's, Jesse Jackson's, Sheila Jackson Lee, Elijah Cummings, Luis Gutiérrez, La Raza (the race) the black militant in the White House and their devout worshipers. All race baiters and hustlers...


That's not quite the same as "multiculturalism," and has very little to do with immigrants and assimilation.

I suggest worrying more about the Islamic takeover of, well, Dearborn, Michigan, for instance.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> Steve M1911A1:
> 
> Absolutely! Just one of the reasons that I am so adamantly opposed to multiculturalism. *Then there's the issue as to which country would they swear allegiance to? In time of war this would be critical if this country was at war with one of those nations. Another is the fact that they could be easily manipulated because of the lack of knowledge of our history or culture. In other words they may think that the freedoms that they did not have in their home country is the same here. They may think that a dictatorship is normal and they are okay with it. They may have the attitude "well that's not the way it was done where I came from".*
> 
> But it does, but it does, always has and always will. There will always be the Al Sharpton's, Jesse Jackson's, Sheila Jackson Lee, Elijah Cummings, Luis Gutiérrez, La Raza (the race) the black militant in the White House and their devout worshipers. All race baiters and hustlers. They thrive on divisiveness and racism, where would any of them be without it? They love fanning the flames, the more the country is divided, the more powerful they become. One already made it to the highest office in the land.


Are we together on this or what?!

What concerns me the most is people coming here and not being required to adopt the American culture as their own. What makes us so different is our exceptionalism and our liberty, which makes our system exceptional. People who come here and don't learn what it means to be American are ripe for the picking, ripe to shape and twist into something we loath.

I have been told by two foreign people, who are American citizens, that we have too much freedom. One of those individuals was British and it was a bit obvious that she did not like the idea at all of armed citizens. I would imagine that if you quizzed foreigners who are here legally about the Second Amendment and whether or not it was relevant and needed today, they'd say 'No' to that question. But then, most nations do not have anything like a Second Amendment.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> That's not quite the same as "multiculturalism," and has very little to do with immigrants and assimilation.
> 
> I suggest worrying more about *the Islamic takeover of, well, Dearborn, Michigan*, for instance.


Yes, that is downright scary and crazy that the city fathers allow this to continue to take place.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, since if all of the Islamics stay in Dearborn, then we will always know who and where they are.
In that way, they are much less of a problem than were they to mix with the population at large.
It'd be pretty easy to build a barbed-wire wall around Dearborn, install a few watchtowers, and put up some sort of instructive sign at its entrance, telling all and sundry that "Work Will Make You Free," or some such similar nonsense.

(Am I being too snarky, here?)

If we were, instead, to properly educate their children the way that the US used to educate the children of immigrants, enforced by legal sanctions as we used to, then we would no longer have any Islamic problem here within 20 years.
Our problems, however, are instead exacerbated by the Politically-Correct, multiculturalist Progressives, who have destroyed public education by changing its intent from the subtle assimilation of all children into "the American way," to the foolish and futile self-actualizationist worship of the individual as an individual. We need individuals to become practicing citizens, not self-involved, society-denying peacocks.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, since if all of the Islamics stay in Dearborn, then we will always know who and where they are.
> In that way, they are much less of a problem than were they to mix with the population at large.
> It'd be pretty easy to build a barbed-wire wall around Dearborn, install a few watchtowers, and put up some sort of instructive sign at its entrance, telling all and sundry that "Work Will Make You Free," or some such similar nonsense.
> 
> ...


This is actually very much an American concept when taught and sought under the framework of Americanism. And by this I mean the concept of individualism over that of the collective being very American.

But I do understand your context here as it applies to the systemic encouragement of foreign peoples to keep and maintain their foreign culture in lieu of adopting that of this nation.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> <snip>
> 
> ... required to adopt the American culture as their own.


You're talking about the European-based mono-culture we've forced on the original inhabitants?



SouthernBoy said:


> I have been told by two foreign people, who are American citizens, that we have too much freedom. One of those individuals was British and it was a bit obvious that she did not like the idea at all of armed citizens. I would imagine that if you quizzed foreigners who are here legally about the Second Amendment and whether or not it was relevant and needed today, they'd say 'No' to that question. But then, most nations do not have anything like a Second Amendment.


You would do well to travel, and find out how the rest of the world views Americans and our culture.

https://scontent-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/h...0x960/980952_641845145846483_1148782810_o.jpg


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> You're talking about the European-based mono-culture we've forced on the original inhabitants?
> 
> You would do well to travel, and find out how the rest of the world views Americans and our culture.
> 
> ...


*"You're talking about the European-based mono-culture we've forced on the original inhabitants?"*
Oh please. Can you leave the guilt off of this.

*"You would do well to travel, and find out how the rest of the world views Americans and our culture."*
I have not traveled to any foreign countries, except for California (heh, heh). I imagine some don't exactly care for us all that much and some probably love us. That doesn't mean that much to me since I am much more concerned about how things are in my own country. But think of this. No other nation in history has made the strides as have we in such a short span of time. In less than 120 years we went from a British colony to the most powerful economic nation on earth. In the 20th century, 70% of the world's inventions came from right here.

I will be traveling to a foreign land in three months but that one doesn't really count since it is an island territory of another nation. And as such, it's economy is dependent upon tourism. My older daughter has traveled through Europe and has lived in France so she's a pretty good source. But frankly, the only country that I would really like to visit is Australia. So that kind of leaves Europe in the dust.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:


> That's not quite the same as "multiculturalism," and has very little to do with immigrants and assimilation.


No, it has to do with divisiveness caused by diversity. That's why I brought up the aforementioned individuals and "La Raza".



> Diversity must not be allowed to cause divisiveness.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy:


> I have not traveled to any foreign countries, except for California (heh, heh). I imagine some don't exactly care for us all that much and some probably love us. *That doesn't mean that much to me since I am much more concerned about how things are in my own country.* But think of this. No other nation in history has made the strides as have we in such a short span of time. In less than 120 years we went from a British colony to the most powerful economic nation on earth. In the 20th century, 70% of the world's inventions came from right here.





> Oh please. Can you leave the guilt off of this.


I'm with you all the way!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> *"You're talking about the European-based mono-culture we've forced on the original inhabitants?"*
> Oh please. Can you leave the guilt off of this.
> 
> <snippage of insular mentality>


No guilt - I subscribe myself, but "just sayin'"


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> You're talking about the European-based mono-culture we've forced on the original inhabitants?
> 
> You would do well to travel, and find out how the rest of the world views Americans and our culture.
> 
> ...


No 'original' human inhabitants, just some earlier arrivals. The New World Overrun is ugly enough, but no different in most aspects from migratory overruns elsewhere in the world.

In my world travels I interacted mostly with people best defined as 'temporary coworkers'. I noticed no significant social problems - including in 'drinking places', where uncommon courtesy might be expected to fall away.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> No 'original' human inhabitants, just some earlier arrivals. The New World Overrun is ugly enough, but no different in most aspects from migratory overruns elsewhere in the world.
> 
> <snip valid observation>


Oh, true. But we didn't leave much of their culture intact apart from naming sports teams after them....


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Oh, true. But we didn't leave much of their culture intact apart from naming sports teams after them....


It may be a matter of how intact the tribe remained in population. The Navajo, for instance, have 'maintained' pretty well. Some other western tribes were teetering on the edge of viability anyway (Comanche, Kiowa). The Eastern tribes, too complicated for me; the Iroquois confederation is certainly still with us, dunno about the culture aspect.


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Back in the early 90's, I wrote this statement, posted it on an "Issues" site on which I was a member, and afixed it outside of my cubical at work...
> 
> *The most dangerous threat to the Security, Welfare, and Future of the United States of America is the concept, development, and promotion of Multiculturalism.*
> 
> ...


I Totally agree


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Greybeard said:


> I Totally agree


Americanism? AMERICANISM? I am very glad to be a Vermonter and an American (and a patriot in my belief). Screw any and all ISMS though. Once an ISM is bought into, ratiocination ceases.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

hillman said:


> No 'original' human inhabitants, just some earlier arrivals...


...Who did their very best to kill-off the native megafauna, and succeeded with the mammoths.
So please, don't anyone try to tell me about how the Amerinds were such good guardians of the environment, either.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...Who did their very best to kill-off the native megafauna, and succeeded with the mammoths.
> So please, don't anyone try to tell me about how the Amerinds were such good guardians of the environment, either.


Hah. For some (possibly esoteric) reason I don't think of those early arrivals as Amerinds. Proto-Siberian immigrants maybe. By the time the European invasion started, the existing Amerind cultures were much further along; some of them probably decadent even.

BTW The mammoths may have been in an unfortunate climatic situation, which was exacerbated by human predation. Looks like it was the New World horses, strangely susceptible to getting run off cliffs (?) that those early guys did in for sure.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Clovis people? Folsom? Whomever.
Anyway, they ran lots of species off of easy-kill cliffs: Horses, bison, mastodons (not mammoths, I think)...everything but sloths and saber-tooth cats. The cats, sloths, and mastodons also ended up in the La Brea tar pits. (Don't you love it: "The La Brea Tar Pits" translates out as "the the tar tar pits.")


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...Who did their very best to kill-off the native megafauna, and succeeded with the mammoths.
> So please, don't anyone try to tell me about how the Amerinds were such good guardians of the environment, either.


I think you'll agree they were better than we have been, though. Or not. Whichever. I'm tired. See ya.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Am I wrong to say that the European immigrants brought their culture, craftsmanship to the states. Many inventors were European who needed the freedom the U.S. Offered.

Assimilation came out of a necessity to survive, get a job, become employable . 

Umm , we have no decent jobs at this time,,, but we are still the land of the free.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I think hitler tried to envision one culture for all Germans


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

pic said:


> I think hitler tried to envision one culture for all Germans


...And Austrians.

Historical Note:
In Vienna, near the Prater, there is a small, tree-lined, riverside greensward called _Mexico Park_. In Mexico Park is an obelisk which commemorates Mexico for having been the only country in the world to have opposed Hitler's _anschluss_, the annexation (assimilation, actually) of Austria by Germany in 1938.
I find Mexico Park to be, itself, a delicious irony: Yes, Mexico was the only country in the world which opposed the _anschluss_. Certainly, Austria itself did not oppose it. The vast majority of Austrians were overjoyed to join-up with Germany - at least until their children were all dragooned into the German Army, and sent off to die on the Eastern Front.
So now, 60 years later, Austria has commemorated Mexico for having done in 1938 what Austria itself should have done, but didn't.

Ironic Note:
Some sage whose name I've forgotten once observed that Austria tries very hard to convince everybody that Hitler was a German, while trying equally hard to convince everyone that Beethoven was an Austrian.
(Hitler was, by birth and citizenship, an Austrian; and Beethoven was, by birth and citizenship, a German.)


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic:


> I think hitler tried to envision one culture for all Germans


Personally, I don't care what race, color, creed, religion or nationality an individual is. We all should be Americans accustomed to and believing in our way of life, history and language. Otherwise why would they even want to live here if things were so great in their home country? The Nazis were racists, who singled out races and religious beliefs for extermination there is a big difference. There is no reason in the world for anyone who wants to live here to not want to become accustomed to the American way of life. No different than having a bunch of "progressives" (sorry "Sail") moving into a conservative state and trying to ram their agenda down their throats and vice versa. To all foreigners who choose to live here: This is America not the country that you left, we kind of like it the way it is and want to keep it that way.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

The British equivalent of the Republicans are trying to force "assimilation" - would violate a few amendments here, for sure.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150513/07020630985/uk-plans-to-do-away-with-free-speech-name-free-speech.shtml

And Yes, I'm aware that the Tories are not a "direct" equivalent, but they're close.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I give credit to those who are brave enough to stand up to a cultural intrusion, who's main purpose is to take away your freedoms.

It's a plague and extreme measures are needed, or good bye UK. OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW

Last fall, we noted that UK Home Secretary Theresa May had made it clear that if her Conservative Party were re-elected, one of the first orders of business would be a new *"Extremist Disruption Orders" plan that would outlaw any speech or events that the government declared "extremist."* She wasn't kidding around. Following last week's election in the UK, David Cameron appears to be announcing just such a plan to basically wipe out anything resembling free expression in the UK (and, yes, I know, the UK doesn't view free expression in the same way as the US does, and there's nothing like the First Amendment there -- you don't have to point that out in the comments). The broad-reaching plans seem absolutely insane:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

The United Kingdom occasionally does some pretty crazy stuff.

For me, it began with the realization that British cars and motorcycles were assembled with screws, bolts, and nuts that were designed to unscrew themselves in use. This was called the "Whitworth thread system."
This was subsequently corrected through the adoption of the Metric System, but for a long while, you could tell that a motorized vehicle was British-made because every part that spontaneously dropped off was made with true British craftsmanship.

Politically, the British penchant for foolish behavior was especially marked by the rejection of Winston Churchill and his political party in the 1945 elections, immediately after the Conservative Party had been instrumental in preserving Great Britain from the Nazis.
It had been previously marked by the insistence of importing a proven-incompetent King (and his even more-incompetent younger son, soon also to become King) from Scotland, after the death, without heir, of Elizabeth I.

Further proof of British political insanity is shown by the fact that Great Britain has a Constitution, but, important as its Constitution is, it has remained unwritten and unrecorded for the past almost-330 years (since 1688).

So this recent Politically Correct and idiotic move to cut off "hate speech" while never addressing the real problem of the true, unassimilated haters, does not surprise me in the least. As is completely business-as-usual in the United Kingdom, all the wrong people will end up in the Tower of London, awaiting the (maybe metaphorical) headsman's axe, while the real nasties will continue to roam free.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> The United Kingdom occasionally does some pretty crazy stuff.
> 
> For me, it began with the realization that British cars and motorcycles were assembled with screws, bolts, and nuts that were designed to unscrew themselves in use. This was called the "Whitworth thread system."
> This was subsequently corrected through the adoption of the Metric System, but for a long while, you could tell that a motorized vehicle was British-made because every part that spontaneously dropped off was made with true British craftsmanship.
> ...


Yeah - that. it's what made the country fun until the Nanny State started to become stronger than it should.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Was assimilation even a legitimate word 30 yrs. ago? :watching:


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> Was assimilation even a legitimate word 30 yrs. ago? :watching:


I think it meant eating something you didn't like.:anim_lol:


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't put a whole lot of stock in words that are born from trends.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Was assimilation even a legitimate word 30 yrs. ago? :watching:


Yes. It was a recognized process in the US before 1900. It was the governing Soviet intent regarding Soviet Jewry after WWII. In the US it worked, at least partly because the immigrants wanted it to. In the USSR, neither the gentile citizenry nor the Jews wanted it to - so it didn't work.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

hillman said:


> Yes. It was a recognized process in the US before 1900. It was the governing Soviet intent regarding Soviet Jewry after WWII. In the US it worked, at least partly because the immigrants wanted it to. In the USSR, neither the gentile citizenry nor the Jews wanted it to - so it didn't work.


How could that be true?

We didn't even have the internet back in the early 1980's.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Was assimilation even a legitimate word 30 yrs. ago? :watching:


Yup! But it wasn't used in quite the same way.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)




----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

U


SailDesign said:


> The British equivalent of the Republicans are trying to force "assimilation" - would violate a few amendments here, for sure.
> 
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150513/07020630985/uk-plans-to-do-away-with-free-speech-name-free-speech.shtml
> 
> And Yes, I'm aware that the Tories are not a "direct" equivalent, but they're close.


I think the UK is trying to avoid losing their countries freedoms ,, as other countries are also taking steps to avoid losing their freedoms , including the USA.
It's a sticky situation.

Arabic Streets Signs In American City Indicates Islamic Takeover


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

According to the _Oxford English Dictionary_, which lists the first noted use of a word, "assimilate," in the sense that we are using it here, first appears in English usage in 1628.
That's well before the advent of the internet, I believe. (But I am not absolutely sure.) It's also long before the appearance of the Borg on the galactic stage.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*Assimilation:*
Sixty-five years ago, my parents started me out on my road to atheism by sending me to Jewish religious school every Sunday. Not only did it deprive me of a much needed weekend holiday, but also the school's anti-factual and unquestionable religious teaching convinced me of the foolishness of religion in general. But that's not the point of this note.

One of the books that this religious school required me to read told the stories of several important "Jewish heroes of the New World." Among these morally-uplifting stories was one about an otherwise unremarkable immigrant from Eastern Europe who, although he grew up in either Poland or Russia (fairly interchangeable at the time), was accustomed by his family life to speak Yiddish in preference to all of the other languages available to him.

For those of you who might not know, Yiddish combines German grammar with a mixture of German, Polish, and Russian vocabulary, all written in Hebrew letters from right to left. To someone like me, whose maternal grandmother insisted upon either English or German in our home, Yiddish reads and sounds like the slurred yammering of poorly-educated children. (Jean's family spoke English and Yiddish, and she insists that Yiddish is a clearly understandable and very adult language. Yeah, right.)

At any rate, the immigrant to America whose story I reference moved directly from the intake on Ellis Island to the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, at that time the most populous self-imposed Jewish ghetto in the New World. There, he was surrounded by Eastern European Jews just like himself, all of whom used Yiddish as their daily language.
But, horror of horrors, all of the businesses in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn indicated their presence with signage that was exclusively in English! If I remember correctly, this was because a New York City law of that time required businesses to use English-language signage.
Our "hero" was aghast! This was a Jewish neighborhood, but all the signs were in English! How was an immigrant like himself to find out which store sold _gefülte fisch_, which sold bagels, and which sold pickles?
So he began a campaign against the city law which required that stores in New York City use the English language on their signs.

And, to make a long story just a little shorter, he won! The law was changed! From that time forward, signs could be in Yiddish...so long as somewhere on the sign there was also an English translation, which could be in very small letters.
And this foolish man was held up to us young people as a Jewish Hero! Here he was in the New World, where he had purposely come to escape the unpleasantness of the Old World, and yet he insisted upon bringing the Old World to America with him! Not only that, but his sign campaign removed the need for immigrants to learn the language of their new country! As long as they stayed in Williamsburg, they didn't have to become conversant in English!

All that I could think, after reading this story, was, "What an a$$hole!" He wanted to make the New World over into an image of the Old World, for his convenience.
I couldn't bring myself to read the rest of this ridiculous book. I actually threw it in the trash!
I couldn't even bring myself to go back to "Jew school," the next Sunday.
Over my parents' horrified objections, I quit. There was no punishment that they could threaten that would make me go back. I was done with it.
And I'm still done with it.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> All that I could think, after reading this story, was, "What an a$$hole!" He wanted to make the New World over into an image of the Old World, for his convenience.


And we have seen this here for decades. One example springs to mind immediately.

About 40 miles away is a nice little town called Culpeper. For generations it has been common practice for folks there who have some land to shoot on their land at their whim. They'd just set up some targets in the "back yard" and have a time of it, by themselves or with friends/family.

Well Culpeper got "discovered" maybe 15 years ago and the yuppy types from the closer in areas* decided that little town would be a great, and inexpensive, place to live. Only one thing. They couldn't have any one shooting on their property there, now could they? So they tried to get the town council to pass an ordinance against this type of activity. I don't know what the outcome was but I suspect they lost... and they probably are not viewed in the best of light after this little episode.

Great way to ingratiate oneself with the local inhabitants by trying to fix that which is not broken.

* Closer in areas means closer to Washington, DC.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

In Culpeper, just as on Orcas Island, the yuppies will eventually win.
Driven by a mostly imaginary fear of misaimed, flying bullets, the growing number of ex-urbanites in Culpeper will demand, and get, the ordinances they want.

The town's politicians will give in because they all want to be reëlected by the growing, kneejerk yuppie majority.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*Assimilation: How old?*
My live-in Latin scholar notes that the Latin is _similem_ ("similar"), or better, _similem facere_ ("to make similar").


----------

