Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Diana West :: Townhall.com Columnist
The PC end of the English-speaking peoples?
by Diana West
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


It's inevitable. This Spanish-speaking demographic is simply too massive to assimilate -- even assuming the multicultural states of America were still in the assimilation business, which we're emphatically not.

And that's shocking, too. But more than shocking, this whole issue is depressing and distressing -- although I know I'm not supposed to say so.

Whenever anyone has the bad taste to point out markers of cultural transformation, the rest of us are supposed to play it very cool, expressing only the most noncommittal reaction, if any at all. We're not supposed to flinch, and we're certainly not supposed to lament such changes, or mourn what is being lost, or, heaven help us, do anything to stop or reverse them, such as demanding the enforcement of existing immigration laws that would both encourage the repatriation of illegal aliens and discourage more from coming.

The socially acceptable position, the one that qualifies as politically correct wisdom suitable to be shouted from rooftops (or written in The Wall Street Journal editorial page), is to accept phenomena such as the Islamization of Britain and the Hispanization of the United States as givens, as progress, as proof of one's own moral goodness. Anything less than regarding these wholly optional changes, ours to make or not, as national destiny -- international destiny? -- is denounced as malicious bigotry.

In this way our conception of ourselves as an existing culture -- open to modification and growth, yes, but not irreversible transformation -- has been grossly undermined. Not only are the traditions and characteristics (English-speaking? Non-Muslim?) of our societies now regarded as being retrograde embarrassments, we are also supposed to cheerfully maintain our societies in a perpetual state of ethnic and/or religious flux. The irony that goes unremarked is that the homogenous -- dare I say, nondiverse? -- nature of Islamic and Hispanic countries sending forth immigrants remains immutable. Which is why it won't matter much to the world if the United States ever becomes the 18th Spanish-speaking country in the Western Hemisphere, and if Britain ever becomes the 57th nation in the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Except, that is, to those who would lament the passing of the English-speaking peoples. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair obviously don't belong to such a group, but who does? The group exists in shamed silence, having bought the PC line that cultural self-preservation -- Western self-preservation, that is--is nothing but an exercise in crude racism. But is it really? If we never hear any answer but "yes," it's time to get out the handkerchiefs and weep, silently.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Diana West's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Songo
One small suggestion and then I'll end our discussion. When you respond to a specific person, you should stick to the specific things that person has said. Otherwise, you weaken your argument significantly and appear to be letting your emotions get ahead of your logic. It invites emotion instead of reasoning from the other person and the downward spiral continues.

Best regards.

Songo
I also thank you for your response of June 10. It is good to disagree more pleasantly. We seem to have different interpretations of the word “ilk .” My very large dictionary has the following, quoted in part without technical portions:

ilk (1). noun. 1. family class, or kind: i.e. he and all his ilk. 2. of that ilk a. (in Scotland) of the same family name or class. b. of the same class or kind. 3. same.

ilk (2). Chiefly Scot. pronoun 1. each. adjective 2. each; every.

I admit that when I was reading your initial post, I was thinking of my own Scottish ancestry (and their ilk) and how they got to this continent and how they fought against the British and (yes) the native Indians even before this was a sovereign nation. Will you agree that I wasn’t being exactly lazy or intentionally offensive? But, if the term does offend you for any reason, I apologize.

As for my assertion that we the citizens could indeed secure our borders if we had the will to do so, I was speaking of what is POSSIBLE, including things which at this point might be considered inappropriate or "unamerican" by many but which at some later time might be considered necessary regardless of severity. The Soviet Union was fairly successful in keeping people inside their wall, augmented by guards with machine guns. Obviously, they didn’t prevent all escapes but certainly prevented mass exits. Obviously, we could do something similar, with more guard posts and more machine guns if desired, and by a large number of other tactics of which you perhaps are not aware. Please note that I am not expressing any judgment about any specific action. As I have mentioned repeatedly, it depends upon the will of the citizens. On the other hand, I do not rule out the possibility of a terrible, bloody civil, or uncivil, war before all this is settled. We have done it before, haven't we? Or, the citizens may simply accept what is happening and try to cope. Eventually, the outcome will be known, but not today. As Brutus stated in Julius Caesar,
“O, that a man might know
The end of this day's business ere it come!
But it sufficeth that the day will end,
And then the end is known.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.