Another view on multiculturalism

Cultural Heritages
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, June 26, 2007


Among the interesting people encountered by my wife and me, during some recent vacation travel, were a small group of adolescent boys from a Navajo reservation. They were being led on a bicycle tour by a couple of white men, one of whom was apparently their teacher on the reservation.

The Navajo youngsters were bright and cheerful lads, so I was surprised when someone asked them in what state Pittsburgh was located and none of them knew. Then they were offered a clue that it was in the same state as Philadelphia but they didn't know where Philadelphia was either.

These Navajo boys seemed too bright not to have learned such things if they had been taught the basics. They also seemed too positive to be the kinds of kids who refused to learn.

The most likely explanation was that they were being taught other things, things considered "relevant" to their life and culture on the reservation.

These youngsters are not just members of the tribe on the reservation. They are also citizens of the United States of America, and have a right to be anywhere in this country, from Florida to Alaska.

Whether they want to stay on the reservation when they are grown or to take advantage of the many opportunities in the wider world beyond the reservation is a decision that should be theirs to make when they reach adulthood.

But those opportunities will be gone, for all practical purposes, if their education does not equip them with the knowledge that is needed to bring their natural abilities to the point where they are capable of doing all sorts of things in all sorts of places.

One of the men who was with these boys expressed great respect for the Navajo culture and there is no reason to doubt that he has good reasons for that conclusion.

But any culture -- whether in or out of the mainstream -- is not just a badge of identity or a museum piece to be admired by others.

A culture is a tool for serving the many practical purposes of life, from making a living to curing diseases. As a tool, it has to change with the ever changing tasks that confront every culture as time goes on.

Although we speak English today, we would have a hard time trying to understand things written in Old English from centuries ago. Languages, like every other aspect of culture, change over time.

Wind-driven sailing ships were a great advance over ships propelled by oars but the sailing ships were in turn superseded by steamships and today we have diesel-powered ships.

No culture can stand still.

Among the Navajo heroes of World War II were men who served in American armed forces in the Pacific and broadcast secret military messages in the Navajo language, which the Japanese were unable to translate.

This required the Navajo code-talkers to come up with new words for things like battleships and airplanes, which had never been part of traditional Navajo culture.

Some of these men were too old to be in the military, or too young, but they volunteered to serve anyway. This was an era when people from every background considered themselves Americans and wanted to help defend this country.

We can only hope that there are many more such people now, ready to serve both their country and their people, and that they will see to it that those promising young Navajo boys end up knowing all they need to know in order to be all that they can be.

Unfortunately, in this age of "multiculturalism," there are too many outsiders who want all sorts of cultures to be frozen where they are, preserved like museum exhibits.

Worse yet, too many multiculturalists want many groups to cling to their historic grievances, if not be defined by them.

But among the many ways that various groups around the world have advanced from poverty to prosperity, nursing historic grievances does not have a promising track record -- except for those who make a career out of keeping grievances alive.

The youngsters we saw deserve better than that.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, in this age of "multiculturalism," there are too many outsiders who want all sorts of cultures to be frozen where they are, preserved like museum exhibits.

---

Kind of ironic then that Sowell and "conservatives" are bemoaning that the USA culture (or at least their version of what it should be) is being lost to the influence of other cultures.

In this case Sowell is taking another "everyone needs to assimilate" stance, but he is after all talking about Native Americans, and the immigrant forefathers didn't assimilate with them, instead............ well that's all history.
Why didn't Sowell ask how come US citizens learn little of Native American culture? After all history goes beyond the pilgrims.

With the Native Americans there is an interesting point with pride of heritage and identity. We often here an argument about slave decedents that "if they feel they are more African than American then why don't they just move there?"
Try making that argument with native Americans.

Now I agree that todays populace is not the ones that suffered the outrages, however pride in ancestry is not a bad thing.

Sowell seems to think that the only pride of identity that is acceptable is that which relates to the USA........A land mass that was here long before the country was formed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, in this age of "multiculturalism," there are too many outsiders who want all sorts of cultures to be frozen where they are, preserved like museum exhibits.

---

Kind of ironic then that Sowell and "conservatives" are bemoaning that the USA culture (or at least their version of what it should be) is being lost to the influence of other cultures.

In this case Sowell is taking another "everyone needs to assimilate" stance, but he is after all talking about Native Americans, and the immigrant forefathers didn't assimilate with them, instead............ well that's all history.
Why didn't Sowell ask how come US citizens learn little of Native American culture? After all history goes beyond the pilgrims.

With the Native Americans there is an interesting point with pride of heritage and identity. We often here an argument about slave decedents that "if they feel they are more African than American then why don't they just move there?"
Try making that argument with native Americans.

Now I agree that todays populace is not the ones that suffered the outrages, however pride in ancestry is not a bad thing.

Sowell seems to think that the only pride of identity that is acceptable is that which relates to the USA........A land mass that was here long before the country was formed.

---

That is quite possibly the wildest misapprehension of an opinion piece I have ever read, even laying aside the fact your of your willful and compulsory bias. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Kind of ironic then that Sowell and "conservatives" are bemoaning that the USA culture (or at least their version of what it should be) is being lost to the influence of other cultures.

In this case Sowell is taking another "everyone needs to assimilate" stance, but he is after all talking about Native Americans, and the immigrant forefathers didn't assimilate with them, instead............ well that's all history.
Why didn't Sowell ask how come US citizens learn little of Native American culture? After all history goes beyond the pilgrims.

With the Native Americans there is an interesting point with pride of heritage and identity. We often here an argument about slave decedents that "if they feel they are more African than American then why don't they just move there?"
Try making that argument with native Americans.

Now I agree that todays populace is not the ones that suffered the outrages, however pride in ancestry is not a bad thing.

Sowell seems to think that the only pride of identity that is acceptable is that which relates to the USA........A land mass that was here long before the country was formed.

---

That is quite possibly the wildest misapprehension of an opinion piece I have ever read, even laying aside the fact your of your willful and compulsory bias. ;)

---

Interesting point though.

I learned next to squat about Native American history. I'm sure the powers that be or have been wanted it somewhat buried.

If the Navajo culture hadn't been strong back in WWII, there might not have been any Windtalkers.

Apparently, all Americans should become clones of white America....the powers that be.

Everyone doesn't want to become that.

As far as holding on to grievances, one should not forget them.

There sure are folks out there that still want commit those grievances.

In my lifetime, I can't recall meeting one Native American. It is quite possible their population has been decimated.

I think a mix of them branching out and staying strong in their culture is great thing.

I happen to be fairly well-versed as to matters involving Native Americans (the ones I know - and I know hundreds - have no trouble being referred to as "tribal" or merely "indians"), and while I have no problem whatsoever with them keeping their culture alive, unless they want to stay on the rez forever, they should know about places such as Sowell mentions, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I happen to be fairly well-versed as to matters involving Native Americans (the ones I know - and I know hundreds - have no trouble being referred to as "tribal" or merely "indians"), and while I have no problem whatsoever with them keeping their culture alive, unless they want to stay on the rez forever, they should know about places such as Sowell mentions, don't you think?

---

Ya know that's probably why I have never seen one in person.

It must be that they all are on reservations.

Ain't it sumthin? Native Americans have been dwindled down to reservationists exclusively.:no:

So, to sum things up: The author of the piece is saying that navajo children get dodgy education, and he's basing that on the fact that a small group of them didn't know in which state two major cities are located. And he calls knowing such things "the basics".

Is he senile at all?

First of all, a "small group" probably doesn't constitute a reliable basis for blanket statements, meaning that it may just be a fluke that they in particular didn't know it.

Furthermore, I bet that if he went out asking people out in the streets of any major city in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world in which state those cities were in, he'd probably be able to find a small cohesive group of people who didn't know it, possibly even including in the very cities in question.

And last, learning geography by memorizing major cities and the states they are in must be one of the more pointless exercises people may go through. Maybe whoever tended to the education of those navajo boys had the brains to spend more time on learning them how to read maps properly instead.

Knowing the locations of tens or hundreds of places many of which you'll probably never visit is useless. And I'm sure there must be better things you can learn instead in the same period of time.

Geography was one of my least favourite subjects in school just because it was useless. I'm positive that I'd be able to plan any trip I could possibly want without knowing where I wanted to go was. All I'd need to do would be to check it up in an atlas, since I do know how to read a map, and to, you know, read period. Give me a map and a compass instead lots of memorized information most of which doesn't concern my current trip, and I'll get there sure enough.

I agree Snny. Since I was at school a lot of the countries have changed names and borders. Some of them changing names more than once. Even The USA has went from 48 states to 51. The last one being the UK under Mr Blair.:rolleyes:

Snee-

You really seem to have no idea how insular American Indian culture can be, much less the other cultures represented here.

Perhaps I should have told you that I live on the reservation myself; my children are tribal, in fact.

Besides which, the phenomenon Sowell speaks of extends far beyond simple geography, all due respect to your distaste for that particular subject.

Boab-

Are you feeling cynical at all (at all).

Perhaps your G.B. will move to secede, and we can have another civil war, though, as I'm sure you are aware, this means the U.K. would have to provide the slaves...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

I agree Snny. Since I was at school a lot of the countries have changed names and borders. Some of them changing names more than once. Even The USA has went from 48 states to 51. The last one being the UK under Mr Blair.:rolleyes:

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Snee-

You really seem to have no idea how insular American Indian culture can be, much less the other cultures represented here.

Perhaps I should have told you that I live on the reservation myself; my children are tribal, in fact.

Besides which, the phenomenon Sowell speaks of extends far beyond simple geography, all due respect to your distaste for that particular subject.

---

Right O, that may be so. The article didn't tell me any of that, though. It looked more like he was inventing an issue out of nothing, going by the article alone.

Speaking of insular cultures, btw: how do you see american culture in that respect?

Just out of curiosity, like.

Is the phenomenon he is talking of particular to Native Americans though?

I recall seeing a programme on TV (a US prog) where they asked US kids basic geography questions - the answers were rather remarkable. Might it not be the education system as a whole that has issues?

One thing I did like was a really lovely (if rather daft girl) who said she was envious of the girl from Montana because she had always wanted to live by the sea. It transpired that Canadia was not coloured in on her school map and she just assumed that there was sea to the North.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Speaking of insular cultures, btw: how do you see american culture in that respect?

Just out of curiosity, like.

---

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there, I did note you said other cultures and all that. What I meant to ask was how you see american culture in general with regards to being insulated.

The way it appears to me, a hell of a lot of americans don't appear to care much about the world outside of America, and this doesn't seem isolated to particular groups, creeds or minorities.

Knowledge of (which may be illustrated with Biggles's example), and indeed interest in the rest of the world appears lacking in general. Is this your experience as well, J2 (it seems to be if I'm reading you right), and how widespread, exactly, is this phenomenon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Speaking of insular cultures, btw: how do you see american culture in that respect?

Just out of curiosity, like.

---

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there, I did note you said other cultures and all that. What I meant to ask was how you see american culture in general with regards to being insulated.

The way it appears to me, a hell of a lot of americans don't appear to care much about the world outside of America, and this doesn't seem isolated to particular groups, creeds or minorities.

Knowledge of (which may be illustrated with Biggles's example), and indeed interest in the rest of the world appears lacking in general. Is this your experience as well, J2 (it seems to be if I'm reading you right), and how widespread, exactly, is this phenomenon?

---

I think this "phenomenon" is mostly related to our size of landmass and geography in relation to other countries.

If one's home country is small as fuck and/or is landlocked with other countries just 100 miles in any direction (or a short distance across the water) then those folk are more likely to branch out.

Even with vacations, the average joe with probably hit the multitiude of spots within America (ex. Disney, Vegas, ski in Utah, Colorado, Mardi Gras in N'Orleans), hit border countries like Canada or Mehico, or hit the islands (Bahamas, Bermuda, Jamaica, South American islands).

Americans have the bulk of their own country to explore. As an example of what I said above, it's quite an effort just to hit Alaska or Hawaii in many cases. A stay in Hawaii will often times run less than the plane trip there.

At a cookout last night, a group of us decided we all wanna go to Jamaica next year. I'm quite stoked since it'll be probably a group of 11 of us and that's just one group of friends. Some had already been to Jamaica and some hadn't (including me).

I always wonder why it's so hard for foreigners over in Europe to figure out that the US is the just short of being equal in size to Europe, is one of largest countries in the world, and it's proximity to many countries with originating cultures is pretty far away.:ermm:

A person visiting Turkey from bratland could probably drive and go through probably 5 or 6 countries to get there and drive a slightly longer distance than if an American went from DC to LA.

The American would be in his home country the entire time.:dabs:

Take countries like Australia or Canada, though. They are big, and isolated, but they still seem to have a decent grasp on how Europe, Asia, and the U.S. looks. Going by things like Biggles's example, americans seem exceptionally ignorant of the world outside, among industrialised, and reasonably wealthy nations at least.

Although I'm sure what you say has something to do with it, I also suspect that there is more to it than that.

Or my impression of it has to do with how the media depicts the U.S., mostly american media on this particular subject, from what I've seen :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Take countries like Australia or Canada, though. They are big, and isolated, but they still seem to have a decent grasp on how Europe, Asia, and the U.S. looks. Going by things like Biggles's example, americans seem exceptionally ignorant of the world outside, among industrialised, and reasonably wealthy nations at least.

Although I'm sure what you say has something to do with it, I also suspect that there is more to it than that.

Or my impression of it has to do with how the media depicts the U.S., mostly american media on this particular subject, from what I've seen :dabs:

---

Don't Canada and Australia have a deep brat influences?

The US went independent while those countries (I think) still have constitutional monarchies ffs.:dabs:

Also I think America has a worse early educational system. However, we excel in college.

The US has marched to it's own tune. I'm not saying that it's entirely good but it has worked.

I couldn't tell you if Average Joe Canadian or Australian has a decent grasp of anything. However, still having close ties with bratland is definitely a major influence.

I'm no expert on either country and how they view themselves, but our being a monarchy means fuckall to many of us, and that's with royals who reside inside our country. If the canadian or/and the australian outlook on that sort of thing is anything like ours, royals are just faces on coins, like. And them being monarchies won't mean much, if so.

And when it comes to Australia, a lot of people are descended from prisoners, whereas others stem from the native population, and many other countries. I really don't know if something like that makes for that closer ties to Britain than those of the U.S., beyond the surface. It hasn't really been a nation on is own for that long, though.

As for Canada, I see it as having more in common with America, but I could be wrong.

In comparison to what do americans excel in college, btw? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

I'm no expert on either country and how they view themselves, but our being a monarchy means fuckall to many of us, and that's with royals who reside inside our country. If the canadian or/and the australian outlook on that sort of thing is anything like ours, royals are just faces on coins, like. And them being monarchies won't mean much, if so.

And when it comes to Australia, a lot of people are descended from prisoners, whereas others stem from the native population, and many other countries. I really don't know if something like that makes for that closer ties to Britain than those of the U.S., beyond the surface. It hasn't really been a nation on is own for that long, though.

As for Canada, I see it as having more in common with America, but I could be wrong.

In comparison to what do americans excel in college, btw? :unsure:

---

Outlook or not, the ties are there. America's ties with bratland are mainly political. When I went to Williamsburg, Virginia, I did hear that the Queen's visit there was a big deal (I think it was some brat anniversary or something). Keep in mind Williamsburg is a huge tourist town though.

Oh and apologies for the statement. I meant American colleges.

I honestly think that those who don't know or care much about the outside of the US are either not educated about it and/or are too wrapped up in their American lives to care. The geography is a huge part of it.

Hell many natives of the DC area don't go to DC monuments and museums so going to Europe juuust might be a stretch.

Also Canada and Australia still having constitutional monarchies coupled with being originally bratland flunkies make them quite different (hell Canada had the French too and that influence is still there).

Are we the only country to tell bratland to fuck off and make them fuck off?:unsure: I'm not surpised that brats are into other cultures. The country has a long and storied history of "touching" them.

I don't doubt that many US colleges do excel. I was rather thinking of those that might have got left behind a tad (although I have no idea if GW has rectified that problem now). However, it did seem to me that perhaps some education might be more equal than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I don't doubt that many US colleges do excel. I was rather thinking of those that might have got left behind a tad (although I have no idea if GW has rectified that problem now). However, it did seem to me that perhaps some education might be more equal than others.

---

I remember a fella being interviewed from Saudi Arabia saying that he understands why some Muslims hate America.

He then went on to say that he would send his kids here to go to college. When the interviewer asked why he would do that? The Saudi basically asked back why wouldn't he want his kids to have the best education possible.

:dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I remember a fella being interviewed from Saudi Arabia saying that he understands why some Muslims hate America.

He then went on to say that he would send his kids here to go to college. When the interviewer asked why he would do that? The Saudi basically asked back why wouldn't he want his kids to have the best education possible.

:dabs:

---

It all makes sense now.


The right wingers are complaining about "liberal professors" because they are providing "the best education possible" and attracting "feriners" (can't do the accent) who in turn want to blow us up.

Fricking liberal traitors.:angry:

We need to replace these liberals with conservative professors, we must lower our education standards for the sake of national security.



:P

feriners :lol:

I'm all for learning your heritage as my children take Aboriginal courses in school , its a separate class with full credits and set up with "Just" Indian kids in mind . I'd rather they learned Hindu or Cantonese cultures as its more relative to our neighborhood .

How much can one learn about basket weaving or potlatch in a school year ? Must be very boring I think . I taught my kids more about the Haida tribe ( my stepdaughter is half Haida ) than anything they learned in school just by searching the net .