Historian Arnold Toynbee famously concluded from his studies that "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder." He saw history as cultures facing challenges. When a culture took on a challenge, it thrived as a civilization. When it retreated before a challenge, it submerged and died.To overcome challenges of any sort, a person or a culture must have a sense of self-confidence. Nations must believe that they are worth defending and preserving. When its citizens lose confidence in the value of their culture or polity, they cannot rise to the challenges facing them. This is why a small number of poorly-equipped and disorganized German barbarians were able to vanquish the Western Roman Empire and how a few crazy revolutionaries topped the Russian Empire.
We've been discussing immigration reform in America. I advanced, as my main argument for the removal and exclusion of illegal immigrants from our country, the subversion of the American culture by massive numbers of Mexican immigrants, who have surplanted our culture for theirs in large parts of the country with no apparent plans of assimilating. I support this position because I believe that American culture is, for various reasons, worth defending. In response, Adam Caldwell asked me if I was first loyal to the Kingdom of God or to the United States.
I replied:
I belong to the Kingdom of God, but honestly, I also belong to the United States. It'd be a shame if it were destroyed. I'd miss my country and my culture.
Wouldn't you?
Adam then said:
A culture of mass consumption and an insatiable desire for more. I wouldn't miss that so much, no. Admittedly, I take advantage of the situation, but would love to see it changed.
Ironically, this critique is precisely the reason why so many Mexicans are moving to the US -- to live a life of wealth, instead of poverty.
But more to the point: Adam (in my interpretation) is expressing a lack of confidence in American culture. It isn't worth defending.
Notice that in my original post, I wrote that we are facing the dissolution of the United States as a cultural and political entity before the tidal wave of Mexican immigration. No one disputed that view. We all know that it's true. The question remains: are we willing to take the necessary steps to avoid that fate? Some of us think that America has sufficient value to justify those steps.
Sadly, others do not.
This was Toynbee's warning: that civilizations whose people do not think that they are worth defending shall fall before those that do.
18 comments:
John,
I have to be honest when I say that I'm not even sure what the "American" culture is or what it looks like, this being a nation of immigrants (not including the Native Americans themselves). I guess I've become programmed in such a way - and this may be good or bad - that I usually identify persons with particular features as Mediterranean or Hispanic or Native American, etc, each with their own particular culture. I don't know how much time you've spent in a Catholic Mass, but there is to me a marked difference between American Catholics and American Protestants.
Me? I'm a sixth-generation Mississippi redneck (according to my dad). If you ask someone from, say, Rhode Island, they might tell you that this is its own culture.
I will agree, however, that our commonality must necessary be English, but I'm afraid we've probably gone too far to turn back. In this, you may be right. Our culture, whatever it is, may be disappearing before our eyes.
John, I am confused as well...
Are you talking about America as a culture or talking about the American Civilization?
As Michael adds: What is the American Culture? Are we a nation of immigrants ?
P.S. Also I think you mean United States of America culture. It is an important distinction because technically Mexico is in the Americas and they too are "Americans" as well as those from Canada. Something I had to learn before i went overseas last year.
I would say that American Culture is the core concept behind American Civilization. For that matter, Chinese Culture would be the core concept behind American Civilization, etc. The terms are almost synonomous.
What is the American culture? We definately have one. Yes, we're a nation of immigrants, but do we stay that way? No.
It's hard to define American culture, but I would say that major themes include futurist optimism, individualism, commercialism, democracy, and an intrinsic conservatism.
Does America have a culture? It's a rather surprising question. Every other nation on earth has one. It is simultaneously pompous and self-deprecating to suggest that America, unlike every other polity on earth, lacks a culture.
And I'm willing to use the word 'America' to refer to the US as a verbal placeholder. It's a lot easier to say than 'United States of America' culture.
John,
Thanks for the publicity...I think my traffic has picked up, don't know if that's good or bad considering on the whole I'm not that insightful. LOL
Hmmm...interesting argument. We as a nation are relatively young. To say that we have had time to fully cultivate the "richness" and "depth" of culture that other nations have would be a bit presumptuous. That being said, I think that we have a culture...As you said of me, I don't know that it is worth defending. I think that our Brothers and Sisters who come here seeking the wealth that we now have will in the end be sorely disappointed, if not dissapointed then certainly disillusioned. (As have many of us.)
Do I agree that the immigrants should assimilate? To a degree, yes. (I.E., waving mexican flags during demonstrations seems a bit silly to me.) But I also believe that we have a great deal to learn from them. The sense of community that they bring is incredible. There sense of work ethic is far greater than mine. (That may not have been true of my grandfather but it is true of my generation.) Why are we no longer willing to do the jobs these people do? (Just a few thoughts)
Individualism, comercialism, and democracy are three of your main cultural points.
Let's begin with "Individualism". I would argue that scripture again and again teaches that, "It is not good for man to be alone." Why would Christ be so concerned about the loving of our neighbor if a society of individualistic values is what he is after? I don't think it was. I think ultimately, Christ wants us to get on board with His system and His values, not our own. That includes living with and in community with one another. Individualism is part of the problem facing this country today. It's just not healthy. Does that mean that we all become defacto robots who walk and talk the same? (I would argue a bit that individualism causes us to do that more than living in community.) To end this section...the Trinity is the prime example of living in community. Why would God present himself to us in three distinct ways? (The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit) Of course there is more than one answer to that question, but I believe one of them is to give us a sense of community, not individualism. God presents himself in a communal fashion as the example.
I have to get ready for a Monday morning Bible study so I will come back later today and hopefully finish up. Thanks for the dialogue brother...I understand that we may get to a point of loving disagreement and that's ok too.
I always get a kick out of people who decry American consumerism...as they sit in front of their wireless computers in furnished, air-conditioned dwellings and their internal combustion vehicles parked on concrete that covers up God's green earth.
Or do these folks solely live on good vibes?
Mark,
Thanks for the email. I thought I would respond on here to clarify for all.
Please don't take my comments as Anti-Americanism. I am proud to be an American (where at least I know I'm free and I won't...) you know the rest. I am more than thankful the the freedom that I have to worship and be who I am. I suppose my passion comes from the potential I beleive this country has.
I still stand by my statement, I think things need to change, and I would not miss the consumeristic lifestyle that we now live. (Well maybe I would a little)
Hey, I think we all need a group hug. Come here guys...that's it. *sigh* *tear*
Yes, Adam, you love America. But not enough to defend it against subversion. At bare minimum, we will become a Balkanized state, yet you seem unconcerned.
Which is the point of my post: if citizens of a civilization think that their civilization isn't worth defending, then it will die.
OK...Fair enough, does that scare you? I guess I will never feel "fully" comfortable in any system this world has to offer. At my core, I am an alien to this land. I will always be an alien to this land.
It's funny you mention subversion. That is exactly what I beleive Christ calls us to do. We give respect to the authority at hand, but we know who is in real control.
John, are you afraid of becoming the minority? Are you afraid of change itself? I guess I don't understand your fear.
Adam,
Thanks for the cyberhug, man. I'm feelin' the love.
I guess I'm with j2 in another post on the same subject. This whole Kingdom of God/nation thing is a false dichotomy. We can serve God and love our homeland.
Yes, there are times when we must, in the words of Peter, obey God rather than men. Yes, I agree with you that many Americans are worshipping the idol of materialism. But to commit "national suicide" (as you put it in a previous post) is not going to magically make consumerism go away.
What's intrinsically wrong with a national identity, anyway? God himself gave the Jews their societal distinctives.
Yes, it does scare me because I think that American culture is beautiful and I'd hate to see it destroyed.
Yes, Christ does call us to subvert popular culture.
And not just ours, but the Mexican culture, too.
I'm very afraid of becoming a minority. It's fun being in the majority. You get to avoid unfortunate things that happen to minorities.
Besides, as the greatest proponent of human rights in modern times, the US has done more good for the world this past century than any other nation on earth. I'm not sure that the future Mexicanized America would retain those same qualities.* I'd rather not take a chance on messing that up for future generations.
*I hasten to add that Europe makes me glad that our illegal immigration problem is with Mexicans, a civilized people (more or less). Life in Mexicanized America will be infinitely better than in the sharia dark age that Western Europe is looking forward to.
Perhaps the influx of immigration from the south is not destroying American culture, but enhancing it.
- AB
Andy, please explain.
I'm working on it ... something about slowing us down. More siesta time. The pace of life is just different, or something. I think I'll post it on my blog after it is more of a comlete thought.
- AB
John,
Don't you think that many people south of the Borders (Mexico and Cuba for instance) immigrate here because they want that "American ideal"? Why else would the come? Andy may be on to something when he talks about seeking to add something to the culture.
Mark...I guess I can't buy that it is a false dichotomy. If we are pinned to the ground and asked which country do we serve, which I think this may be one of those situations, we have to say God's country. (In no way am I saying that America is God's country.)
Yes, God did give the Isrealites distinct characteristics. I am curious as to how you would define them. In my opinion I think they did a really good job at screwing all of that up. (i.e., the Pharisees being concerned with the mere outward as opposed to the heart. Wash the inside of the cup and the outside will automatically come clean.)
I had this conversation with my father not too long ago. I don't know that we will ever be able to see I to eye. (my father and I that is) I fully admit that I am two generations removed from WWII. That may have a difference on my context and perspective.
As long as we can agree that being a "good" Amereican, whatever that my mean, is not a prerequisite for being a "good" Christian then we're cool. Shoot, we're cool even if we don't agree on that.
I would like to add the word "exclusively" after country in the first paragraph.
"So let it be written, so let it be done."
I feel like I’m coming a little late to this one, but, well, I was retired for a while there, and anyway, these were posts I had to ponder on, turn over a few times, find just the right response for. As usual, we don’t see eye to eye; as usual, you put your version of things too well for a simple “as if, bonehead” to make me feel I’d won.
So, after two days of deep pondering, here’s my thoughts:
Is there anything wrong with enjoying your culture? With enjoying membership in the dominant class? No.
Is there anything wrong with wanting things to stay that way? With wanting to preserve the culture that you’ve grown up in and love, wanting to cling to a certain national identity? Nope. (Ask my mom—when I was a kid, I sobbed because she wallpapered the living room. I don’t like change, even change in the little things, so I can’t find fault with people who don’t feel particularly comfortable with the idea of big, important things changing).
Is there anything wrong with taking measures to prevent those changes? With taking action that would allow you to stay in that dominant, privileged class, action that would prevent people from changing the culture you have every right to enjoy so much?
That one, I think, has to be answered with an “it depends.”
Whether it’s wrong or right comes down to questions and answers regarding wants vs. needs, life vs. lifestyle.
Wants—and I would say that the desire to maintain a certain lifestyle, a sense of privilege, a particular flavor of culture is in every way a “want”—are legitimate. We have every right to act on our wants, to seek the fulfillment of our own desires… up to a point. And that point, most of us would agree, comes when the fulfillment of our want conflicts with someone else’s need. My desire to get loaded up and drive real fast so I can watch the colors go by in neat ribbons and swirls, for instance, is less important than the need of everyone else on the road to make it home alive, so I can’t do that sort of thing. Even though sometimes I’d like to. That sort of thing. When weighing wants vs. needs or life vs. lifestyle, needs and life get priority, want and lifestyle have to be content with the back seat.
When it’s want vs. want or need vs. need?
If the immigration issues that you were discussing here were about life and safety, you’d have a lot of room to argue. To ask for secure borders in effort to keep bad people from hurting you is pretty rational. But that’s not where you seemed to be going with these posts. That seems to be a different discussion altogether. You didn’t express fear that a Mexican might come to your house and kill you, only that he might come to your country and force you to read signs written in Spanish or take away your privileged position in the culture.
And if you were upset with people coming to the country purely because of their wants—if there was a large influx of people moving to your neighborhood from Mexico purely because they liked the scenery better or because your town had a world famous cheese maker and, hey, who doesn’t like good cheese—then I’d be with you on that one too. It would be a conflict of wants, and you’d be the one being forced to give something up and make changes on another’s whim, so you’d be right to protest.
In reality, though, the people you’re talking about aren’t coming to your neighborhood out of whimsical preference. The news stories I’ve seen have never featured wealthy, contented Mexicans racing across the border in the middle of the night. I haven’t seen a whole lot of happy, well fed individuals leaving their mansions to climb into the trunks of rusty cars and risk suffocation, dehydration, death in an effort to get the cheese that so clearly belongs to you.
What we do see are poor people in bad situations making hard choices—leaving their families, risking their lives—in an effort to fulfill a real need, to find something better. An awful lot of people coming into this country and threatening to ruin your good time are pretty unambiguous example of people in real, painful need. To say “I don’t care,” to ignore that fact because you enjoy your privilege and don’t want to give it up, strikes me as immoral, as (forgive me if I sound self-righteous) unChristlike, and as not okay—even when it comes with touching patriotic rhetoric or awkward passages torn from the dustier pages of the Old Testament.
It brings to mind an argument I’ve heard for years from the anti-abortion crowd, one that I don’t think works as smoothly as they’d like to believe when arguing that issue, but applies perfectly well here. I’ve been told often enough that the women who choose to have abortions (as opposed to those who have abortions for health reason) are acting immorally because they place less value on their children’s lives than they do on their own lifestyles. When we’re talking about cells with no capacity to think or feel, I think it’s a little more complicated than that (whichever side your final answer falls on); when we’re talking about real, living, breathing, thinking, feeling people born on the other side of an imaginary line, it seems straight forward.
The whole desire to value our own wants more than another’s needs is pretty normal and common, but it’s nothing we should be proud of, we shouldn’t make space to argue for its legitimacy. When you’re standing in line at the grocery store with two items in your hand and some belligerent guy with a cart full of groceries pushes past you and takes your place, he’s focused on his own wants, his own desires, can’t imagine yours could matter. When you go to the store and buy coffee for a dollar fifty instead of the six dollar Fair Trade stuff so that you can save money so that you can afford 175 cable channels, you’re pretending that your own whims are more important than the lives of the people growing and picking your coffee, the people who can barely feed themselves, who live in appalling conditions. When you spend a fortune on a Hummer and drive it all over town because it makes you feel powerful and the chicks dig it, you’re putting more value on your own ego than on all the negative things that over consumption and pollution is doing to the world and to future generations.
Common place. Sometimes understandable (we do, after all, have a “fallen nature,” right?) but not okay.
So I guess if your interest in keeping poor brown people from other countries out of your neighborhood is really all about enjoying the privileges you have and not wanting to see the things that you like changing, it’s not entirely alright. To want to see some sort of regulation, to have an expectation that in some ways people assimilate (ways that will allow society to keep functioning), is understandable. But again, that doesn’t seem to be what you were getting at.
Before I go (I’ve been rambling)—how different is what you’re saying here from the rhetoric of racists not too long ago? “I have privileges, I enjoy them, I want to keep them.” “I like my culture the way it is, I don’t want it to change.” Those words could have easily come out of the mouths of people opposed to civil rights (or even to the abolition of slavery) not so terribly long ago. Certainly, when the civil rights era (and the abolition of slavery, and women’s suffrage) brought about significant changes in the culture and took a certain degree of privilege away from people who seemed to be thoroughly enjoying it. Would those people have been justified in opposing integration, abolition, suffrage? And I’d be willing to guess that you and I—both white, male, educated, privileged—live in very different worlds, have different takes on culture. Can your arguments for opposing immigration be applied to keeping people like me out of your neighborhood? If me and twelve of my friends were to move into your neighborhood and change the local culture, could you kick us out?
Post a Comment