Assimilation, PC, and the left singularity

There is no non-magical progressive theory for how “assimilation” works.  Progressivism is, in fact, incompatible with assimilation – in any logical sense.

The progressive fervor for immigration from third world countries combined with the speech and behavior restrictions of political correctness, make assimilation impossible.  Therefore, even if immigrants from 21st Century Mexico were as likely to assimilate into American society as previous waves of immigrants (a big if), we should still expect American society to be less successful at assimilation today.

Assimilation is the process by which foreigners are incorporated into a native population.  No doubt foreigners can change the native culture, but the general trend obviously must be toward fitting foreigners into the native culture.

In general, American society is getting much less good at assimilating immigrants.

GLP digs up a study on assimilation – read his post.

It’s time to stop obfuscating and state the goal of assimilation in plain language.  The goal of assimilation is to get Mexicans to stop acting so . . . Mexican.

I see only one way to bring this about: make fun of extremely “Mexican” behavior.

In the old days (according to those charts at GLP) American society was pretty good at assimilating immigrants.  In those days, if an Italian guy was acting too Italian, you could make fun of him.  Racial slur aside, the point is that non-assimilating behavior was shamed.

Thanks to the total dominance of progressivism today, if a Mexican is acting too Mexican, we have to . . . celebrate his Mexican-ness.  In other words, today, non-assimilating behavior is celebrated (by people who get as far away from it as possible).

All else equal then, we should expect that as societies become more progressive, they demand more immigration and get worse at assimilating immigrants.  Until something gives.  Such is the left singularity.

Advertisements

12 Responses to Assimilation, PC, and the left singularity

  1. Handle says:

    Last week there was a good article in the National Review about this, The Failure of Pluralism.

    The best part is the early 1890’s quoting of Theodore Roosevelt, Old-Progressive extraordinaire, back when they had some sense. Pages and pages of great writing from him on the subject here. One example

    We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

  2. PA says:

    Assimilation means intermarriage. It’s a non-starter when immigrants are culturally and genetically too distant from the native population, unless you want to transform said native population into something that resembles the places that the immigrants escaped from.

    America is culturally assimilating immigrants quite successfully, I’ll add. But not to white middle class norms. Rather, high functioning immigrants assimilate to anti-white Brahminate. Middling quality immigrants assimilate to vulgar bourgeoisie minivan & mcdonalds materialism. Low-functioning immigrants assimilate to black ghetto.

    • Foseti says:

      Of course that’s not the progressive theory. They must be it’s possible for all people. My point is that it would seem the only tool available to them is shame . . . Which they’ve outlawed.

  3. VXXC says:

    The Singularity’s convulsions are coming faster and faster.

    Yesterday CNN led into 0900 with Terrorism/Immigration. By 0903 they had completely segued into Gay Marriage Green Card Immigration Bill Family Reunification [GMGCIBFR], with the Republican they bought in to denounce his own party for not being Leftist enough having already lost track of the conversation, poor soul.

    Cheer up, the convulsions are Labor Pains. For good or Ill, for Triumph or Horror [or both] it will certainly be DIFFERENT.

  4. Bruce B. says:

    See this discussion between Larry Auster and his reader Larry G.

    The way they phase it is catchy. “Discrimination” was the flame under the melting pot”

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008976.html

  5. Jehu says:

    Anybody who can’t understand why hazing works for building cohesion shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an immigration policy.

  6. C.R. says:

    Speaking of Larry Auster, I forget the term he coined but his general argument was that the failures of liberalism call for more liberalism. Others have made the argument, but his is the first place I read it put that way.

    It is a mistake to think that assimilation will always work as efficiently now as it did in the past. The mere fact that immigrants dilute culture means that there is less of an assimilating force. As assimilation fails to work, liberal progressives call for less and less pressure to assimilate as if the requirement to assimilate was the root cause of the problem in the first place.

    • Bruce B. says:

      There’s Auster’s Law of Majority-Minority Relations.

    • asdf says:

      As we all know, the bomber brothers just needed love. That’s the MSM narrative. Was just on The Onion and was amazed at their fascination with the “cute” younger bomber brother.

  7. […] 4.  What does it mean to be an American?  Discussed here as well, and also here. […]

  8. sconzey says:

    You make two simple mistakes:
    1. Assuming the left cares about intellectual consistency when it does not aid the power-grabbing of individual leftists.
    2. Assuming that the left considers itself more civilised than others.

    Re: (2) a good friend of mine once told me with a totally straight face that the reason homophobia is rampant in Africa was because of manipulation by the American religious Right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: