Words of wisdom from Dr. Vallicella, from "Tribalism and Diversity":
Tribalism is on the rise while classical liberalism is on the wane. Given this fact, does it make sense to admit into one’s country ever more different tribes? A piety oft-intoned by leftists is that diversity is our strength. An Orwellianism, that, if tribal diversity is at issue. For that would amount to the absurdity that the more domestic strife [there is], the stronger we become. It is plain, after all, that different tribes do not like each other, and do not see themselves in the other. Tribal identification is other-exclusive. There is no comity without commonality.
I am against tribal identification. I realize, however, that I am sawing against the grain of the crooked timber of humanity. People will continue to identify themselves as members of groups. Classically liberal ideals such as toleration are no match for the ingrained tendency to revert to the tribal. So the realist in me says that immigration policy must favor those who are assimilable to our values and principles and must exclude those who aren’t.
Add enough meatballs to your salad, and it's no longer salad.
(Also: Did you spot the error in the lower half of the first paragraph?)
I don't think that comma after other is appropriate. "It is plain, after all, that different tribes do not like each other[,] and do not see themselves in the other."
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem. Can you say why it's a problem?
DeleteBecause it is a compound predicate that doesn't require a comma.
DeleteYou got it. Ain't nuthin' to add to that.
DeleteThere has always been tribalism but I agree it has gotten worse. Early 1900's, a lot of backlash against German immigrants. Same with Eastern European jews around the same timeframe. It does take a couple of generations to assimilate and it is harder when it the two cultures are more different than the same. Been some interesting articles about the relationship/cultural conflicts between Asians (Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, etc.) born in the US and their immigrant parents who still have one foot rooted in their home country.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the US does need (legal) immigration. Otherwise, we will be no different from north Asian countries (Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc.) that are facing a steep population decline over the next century.
Brian
If what you're saying is consistent with this:
DeleteClassically liberal ideals such as toleration are no match for the ingrained tendency to revert to the tribal. So the realist in me says that immigration policy must favor those who are assimilable to our values and principles and must exclude those who aren’t.
—then we're largely in agreement. In principle, I've got nothing against legal immigration for anyone, but even with that, there are limits. The best example I can give is that of la banlieue surrounding Paris—a massive and increasingly dense ring of tenements full of Muslim immigrants (legal and illegal) who, despite having generations to do so, have not integrated into French society, to the point where la banlieue is dotted with police no-go zones.
Are there Gallicized Muslims? Sure, just as there are Americanized Muslims, and yes, it did require generations for those Muslims to reach that point. But even those latter generations still retain a great deal of the first-generational cultural static, and that's a problem inherent in Islam itself. People from Western Christian cultures are more receptive to the idea of separating church and state ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"), but in Islam, there is no separation between the secular and the sacred, the theological and the political: there is only the sacred. If unenlightened people don't realize they are already part of al-Lah's domain, then they are given the theological label of belonging to the Dar al Harb, the House of War (in contrast with the Dar al Islam, the House of Holy Submission). These people must be converted or killed, and there is a long-term view of what this project entails. This agenda can't be waved away with a dismissive "pshaw" or an assumption that most Muslims are "just like us." That's the attitude that got the West in trouble to begin with.
Of course, liberal Muslims do exist. (I've been watching this guy for years, and frankly, it's hard to find other imams like him. I keep thinking he's going to be assassinated one day.) If the only Muslims entering the West were like Imam Tawhidi (see that link), I would have no worries and would welcome them with open arms. But the reality is that most Muslims are not in Tawhidi's camp, and that's a huge problem for which I don't see any simple solutions.
So—do we need legal immigration? Probably yes. But do we have to exercise greater caution as to whom we let in and why? Definitely yes.
Imam Tawhidi: "You imported the garbage!"
Delete