One thing that I think we need to do is to make people aware that there is a huge difference between the two. In fact, these are opposite, and opposing concepts.
John Savage has put up an excellent post this morning which is the primary inspiration for this post...
In reading John's post, two things were brought to mind, as I said in my comments to the entry:
1. Linda Chavez's statements in the recent FrontPage symposium on immigration and assimilation. And,
2. One of Lawrence Auster's recent entries over at VFR where in his concluding sentence to the initial entry, Auster reveals what a friend of his said to him while discussing the matter of the Muslim immigrants in our country. From memory, Auster's friend said that the Muslims were/are acculturating Americans to their customs in preparation for their ultimate takeover of America.
And here is where the rubber meets the road with regard to the difference between assimilation and acculturation. Assimilation means that the immigrants reject the culture of their homeland and adopt the culture of their new home. Acculturation means the very opposite; the host country and culture adapts itself to the cultural characteristics of the migrants. This is what multiculturalism does. It can't not destroy Western and American culture.
What Chavez and her ilk are talking about when they say that immigrants assimilate naturally, is not assimilation at all. It is, to the contrary, acculturation of Western and American culture to alien cultures. What Chavez fails to recognize (for whatever reason) is that American culture has already been turned on its head due to multiculturalism's demand that we acculturate, rather than that the aliens assimilate.
End of initial post.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Assimilation or Acculturation?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Linda Chavez has it all figured out
Check out this FrontPage article where Chavez debates with other distinguished panel guests on immigration and assimilation. Doubtless you'll want to read the entire article, but I'll wet your appetite with a statement from Chavez which reduces to brass tacs what her core beliefs are on the question of immigrant assimilation.
Chavez writes:
"I support large-scale immigration and assimilation because both are good for the country. The latter happens more or less naturally, despite the best efforts of the ethnic lobbies; and the former leads to a higher standard of living for all Americans by feeding new workers into America’s job-creating machine. I’d like to see more efforts on the part of government to encourage assimilation, but even the ill-conceived policies John and I deplore have not stopped the assimilation from proceeding apace. I don’t worry that we’ll be overwhelmed by people who want to re-create their homelands here. Even among immigrant groups that tried to do so—most prominently, German immigrants in the 19th Century—their efforts failed. American culture is simply too attractive and immigrants too eager to succeed for there to be much cause for concern."
Boy am I relieved! And here I thought there was something to be concerned about. When in actuality there is nothing to be concerned about at all. In fact, any concerns we express are revealed by Chavez as alarmist and reactionary. If we'd just put a little more thought to it, we'd realize, as Chavez has, that not only can all cultures assimilate in America, but that they always have and always will. I'm just wondering why Chavez wants to see more ("large scale" I presume) government encouragement of immigrant assimilation. It's going to happen anyway, right?, American culture being so attractive and whatnot. I guess the idea is to make it happen quicker? I'm so confused.
End of initial post.
Assimilation is dependent upon Discrimination?
In a comment to the most recent VFR entry, Larry G. thoroughly debunks the myth that assimilation is even possible in the absence of discrimination.
Here is part of what Auster says about Larry G.'s comments.
LA writes:
Larry G. has just come up with the most concise refutation of neoconservatism ever. A non-discriminatory country that admits culturally diverse immigrants and then assimilates them is a contradiction in terms.
Now, go over to VFR and read Larry G.'s comments which Auster is referring to above. And refute them if you dare.
End of initial post.