The Drudge Report at this link is publicizing Pat Buchanan's new book which apparently is another jeremiad with this subtitle: "The Third World Invasion & Conquest of America." I have not read the book, but here is a line quoted by the Drudge Report-- and I assume a line made available to the media by the publisher-- as carrying the big marketing punch:
“As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended” (italics added).
Now, from this one line, again which I assume the author and his publisher want to put up front as telling us what the book is about so that we will want to buy the book, we have a big argument for NOT buying the book. This line put forward by the author's media blitz is proof of deep confusion, obtuseness, and ignorance on the part of Buchanan. In a less public forum, I would use a less diplomatic word than obtuseness.
What this quote says is that the enemies of the West are coming over the Rio Grande into America and over the Mediterranean into Europe. As to Europe, I have no argument if Buchanan is referring to the Moslems from North Africa and elsewhere who are crossing the Mediterranean. The Moslems flooding Europe do not share any of the languages or the historic religion of Europe. While Western religion arose from Judaism, Islam came several centuries after the Incarnation. Moslems are, in my view, non-Western, although there have been important intellectual links in past centuries.
But only someone utterly oblivious to the obvious can put the Mexicans and Central Americans on the other side of the Rio Grande in the same non-Western category as the Moslems flooding Europe. I do not believe that Buchanan is a racist, but I do think that a strong case can be made that his analysis of Hispanic immigration does indeed have a racist component. Why?
Let's get to the point: Buchanan is saying that the Mexicans are not part of Western civilization. Why not?
1. Their native language is a Western European language, the language in which the first novel of the Western world was written: Don Quixote by Cervantes. Spanish is a child of Latin, the quintessential language of Western culture for centuries. In fact, in my personal opinion, compared to French and even Italian, Spanish is much closer in form to Latin than these other two Romance languages are.
2. They are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church is the mother of Western civilization. The central trunk of Western civilization is Catholic. In the broad scheme of Western history, the Protestant nations of northern Europe are a peripheral offshoot--some might say an aberration--from this main Catholic central trunk of Western culture.
So the Mexicans speak a Western European language closely related to Latin, they are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, yet these are the hordes who signal the end of Western civilization? Forgive me for putting up two other possibilities for Buchanan's view that the Mexican hordes signal the end of the West: 1.) they are poor and 2.) they are dark-skinned.
If Buchanan's objection is poverty, then it is absurd given that it is precisely poor immigrants who have strengthened America. If it is skin color, then Buchanan better make it clear if he wants people to think that Western culture requires a white skin. In my opinion, the promotion of his book implies a racist analysis whether he is aware of it or not. The promotion also explicitly shows great historical ignorance of Western civilization and history. A civilization should have defenders that are familiar with the history of that civilization. Those are the most effective defenders of any civilization.
What Buchanan misses (how could he miss it!) is precisely the big difference, very fortunate for us, between the U.S. and Europe: the immigration problem in the U.S. is Catholic, while that in Europe is Moslem. Now, certainly, immigration is a big problem that must be addressed with a renewed emphasis on law and order and, in my personal opinion, with a guest worker program such as the one we had in the fifties under Eisenhower. But Buchanan does not contribute to a solution by making such an obvious and gigantic cultural and historical blunder in confusing Mexicans with Moslems. Instead of promoting his book, this blunder will lead readers with any basic education to question ever taking the time to read the book. And, even worse and more embarrassing, Buchanan is, I think, of Catholic background--although I would be more certain of that if his last name were Gonzalez or Alvarez.
13 comments:
A very good analysis!
I think your distinction between Moslems and Mexicans is not quite right. Certainly you are correct in your statement that Moslems are non-western, but you more or less imply that somehow Buchanan could be correct in his assertions about Moslems, while wrong about the same assertions about Mexicans. Just like the vast majority of Mexicans crossing our borders are decent people only looking to better their own lives, so too are the vast majority of Moslems immigrating to Europe. The cultural differences between Moslems and Europeans in general probably make it more difficult for Moslems to assimilate into European societies, but their motivations for immigrating are, in my opinion, exactly equal to those of any other immigrant: they want a better life, and Europe is as close as it gets. Just as America is and has been strengthened by the immigrant, so too will Europe be strengthened. Immigrants, legal or illegal, are no threat to civilization – law enforcement issues notwithstanding -- unless your civilization is the one continuing to operate at a net immigration loss. People are the real treasure of any nation; to continue to lose your best and brightest to other countries is when your civilization is in real trouble.
Reply to Jason:
You give a very thoughtful comment that is hard to disagree with. My issue with Buchanan is the issue of whether Mexicans specifically are a threat to the Western identity of our civilization. A majority Mexican United States would still be Western because Mexico itself is a Western nation. But a majority Moslem United States, in my opinion, would not be Western. No Moslem country is Western. The closest is Turkey because it set out under Ataturk to become Western. To do so, Turkey became a secular nation. In my opinion, though, Turkey is not Western because I view Christianity as essential to Western civlization.
As to your point about Moslems coming to the U.S. and to Europe to seek a better life, I do not disagree. But we are under attack by Islamic fascists. We are not under attack by an international Hispanic movement. In addition, in my opinion, Islam itself carries within its teachings a positive view of violence and coercion when motivated by advancing the boundaries of Islam and also strengthens this appeal to violence by promising (as I understand it) that those who die in jihad will get to pleasure themselves with 72 virgins in paradise. That appeal to violence and to the gratification of lust in the cause of expansion leads me to view Islam as problematic for those who are not Moslem.
It is a pity that you won't read Pat Buchanan's book and see the case he lays out. I am reading his book now, and the facts and statistics are alarming. If you refuse to read his book then you should at least take a trip to Los Angeles and stay there for a while. Maybe then you will get the picture of what is happening to this country. But then again maybe you won't.
Reply to Minnesota Mary:
You miss the point of the post. I can't make it any clearer.
I understand all about Islamic fascism. As someone who had the opportunity to serve my country in the Middle East, I have actually lived in Saudi Arabia and have been exposed to the Islamic culture there. My opinions on Moslems are of course colored by my experience there, which was overwhelmingly good. I’ve never met nicer people in all my life than the friendly people I encountered on a daily basis in Riyadh and Dhahran. Of course, a couple of months after I left Saudi Arabia, one of the places I used to live in, Khobar towers in Dhahran, was bombed by one of the fascists you speak of. So, yes, these people exist in our world. There are equally violent Hispanic groups involved in drug trafficking and other sinister crimes; there are violent groups of Americans right here in the US; these are violent people regardless of their proclaimed religion. These types people exist in Islamic society too, and I agree that what is held up as Islamic virtue by many of these sects of fanatics is tantamount to premeditated murder, or even war. But we mustn’t allow the crimes of the few guide policy in a way that denies opportunity to the whole. I’ve noted before on this blog that prejudice and fear are not fertile ground for policy. I draw no relevant distinction between lawless Mexican immigrants, and lawless Islamic zealots: neither are suitable citizens in this or any other country. A suitable immigration policy is one that honors the intrinsic value of the immigrants as human beings seeking to fulfill the full potential of their God-given abilities, while at the same time protecting the legitimate (not illegitimate) interests of the State to protect society from harm. What I hear from people like Buchanan is a lot of fear mongering and a “slam the door shut” approach. I believe that following such a path would be a big mistake.
Reply to Jason:
I agree with you about Buchanan. He's a big disappointment who will unfortunately stir a lot of people up emotionally without pointing to a rational and workable solution. Buchanan reminds me of a guy at the corner bar who spouts opinions with great certainty but with little thought.
Yet, I still politely disagree about Islam: there is something there distinctively and ideologically dangerous in a systematic way that is not present among other groups that I have experience with in my own life. But thanks for your thoughtful comments. Your comments are a model of the exchange of views that I want on my blog: people can disagree rationally and charitably so that all parties, hopefully, end up more thoughtful about the issues.
I am a fan of your site, however I think it seems at best rash to post an extended criticism of the book without reading it, especially one throwing around unhappy slurs such as 'Racist.'
A significant point is that while Mexicans are indeed Westerners, many immigrants today are crossing the border without wanting to assimilate their culture into the larger existing one. American culture is more distinct than simply 'Western,' as I assume you'd quickly agree. The resulting hyper-multiculturalism is one of PB's points of concern, and one trait many Mexicans and Moslems have in common.
Also, while I suspect that many Mexican immigrants are faithful Catholics and add a needed element to our society, I am curious as to what percentage might be described as faithfully Catholic versus similar to American cafeteria Catholics. I hope the estimate is high!
Reply to Joe:
I specifically stated in the post that I do not believe Buchanan is a racist, but rather that his analysis, in my opinion, has a plausible racist component that needs to be addressed. As to not reading the book, I take issue with Buchanan's quoted statement that is being used to promote his book. He is responsible for that statement and can't require that someone read his book first before taking issue with his statement that is being highly publicized. Having said that, I hope you continue to be a fan of my site in spite of our difference of opinion on Buchanan.
What our host, Mr. Sobrino, has discussed here is the promotion of Buchanan’s book, not necessarily the book itself. If you go to amazon.com you can find the publisher’s description of the book, and it is pretty much as Mr. Sobrino has described. I think the point is, the promotion of the book is intentionally alarmist and I also agree (with Mr. Sobrino) that some would view the promotional description as racist. It wouldn’t be the first time Mr. Buchanan was accused of such a thing.
In my own view, the promotional description is nothing more than the typical tripe used to promote just about every political op-ed book that is released. Sensationalism sells and this book’s publisher makes no exception. The publisher would have us believe that the US is in the midst of a war where the Mexican government is pursuing a strategy of conquest by massive migration (occupation?). Nonsense. The Mexican government is incapable of pursuing strategies at all, and that of course is the main reason for the massive influx of Mexicans to this country. There is no conspiracy among millions of immigrants; there is only massive unfulfilled need. The Church recognizes this and is trying to do its part to address it ( http://www.usccb.org/mrs/dimarziotestimony.shtml ).
This country has a legitimate national interest in protecting our borders. But I part company with folks like Mr. Buchanan when the proposed solutions – if any solutions are even offered -- are based on denying people the blessings of this nation on the basis of their: poverty, unwillingness to assimilate, culture, race, ethnicity, nationality, educational attainment, work skills, religion, or any other aspect of their human condition. Like many others, Mr. Buchanan would slam the door shut and reduce immigration to a trickle. How else to repel the “barbarian” invaders? Mr. Buchanan and his ilk see impoverished Mexicans as a threat to our American way of life; I see them as human beings who foremost need our love and compassion. Therein is the difference, and the reason I won’t be buying Mr. Buchanan’s book (I’m buying Sobrino’s instead!).
Richard Rodriguez of the CATO institute had an essay on illegal immigration, a couple of his points:
Americans have tended to abrogate to economists the question of the costs and the benefits of illegal immigration. But, surely, beyond how much Betsy Ross is willing to pay for a head of lettuce, there is the question of morality, there is the question of Mexico. How much of Mexico are we willing to take within our borders? I believe the question might better be asked of a theologian, than an economist.
Hispanic. In all the video footage I have seen of people crossing illegally from Mexico, of people arrested, the faces look more Indian than Spanish. Most of the illegal immigrants from Mexico may be mestizo, racially, but Indian features predominate. And isn't that curious? The Indians are illegally coming into the United States.
This doesn't highlight his discussion of the Catholic background and Catholicism's respect for the poor, which seems a part of their self acceptance. This and a number of other interesting perspectives are there.
I pretty much agree with Sobrino on this one. I have been a past admirer of Buchanan, primarily for his staunch pro-life stand and his opposition to this country's imperialistic and militaristic foreign policy. But I never agreed with his opposition to immigration, and wrote his party headquarters to that effect when he ran for president, pointing out just what Sobrino says concerning the Catholicism of the immigrants from the south.
In fairness to Buchanan it should be pointed out that he opposes not only Spanish but Moslem and Asian immigration for much the same reason, that it is detrimental, in his view, to the cultural unity of this Anglo-American nation if they cannot be assimilated. His opposition, therefore, is to multiculturalism. Which leads to the question of just what defines a culture? It seems to be a fuzzy concept that includes such things as language, religion, literature, art, race or ethnicity, a common history, geography, politics, etc. John Stuart Mill, in chapter 16 of his book "Representative Government," discusses this under the name of "nationality," and raises many of the issues involved, pointing out that none of the attributes just listed is necessary or sufficient by itself. The Catholic historian Christopher Dawson regarded religion as the central element in any culture. It should also be said that the "Culture War" in this country is primarily a moral war, and that as faithful Catholics the Spanish immigrants would be a welcome ally in this conflict.
Buchanan is also more of a nativist than a racist. That he is not a racist should be evident from his selection of an African-American black woman as a running mate in that earlier election campaign.
Nevertheless, I agree that he goes overboard in this latest book, judging from the pre-publication hype (which, however, is consistent with his prior statements on the issue). It is certainly ironic that a descendant of Irish immigrants who suffered from the same brand of nativism should now be advocating it. It is also ironic that this country now attempts to exclude the Mexican immigrants from territory that was forcibly taken from them in the Mexican-American War. As a Mexican-American physician once put it to me, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!"
The real problem, in my view, is the need for the Catholic Church to set up and fund the appropriate structures for ministering to these Catholic immigrants, a task that is especially urgent in that evangelical Protestants hungry for converts are meeting with some success, as they are in various parts of Latin America. It would be a great tragedy if too many of these loyal Catholics were lost to the American Church.
I pretty much agree with Sobrino on this one. I have been a past admirer of Buchanan, primarily for his staunch pro-life stand and his opposition to this country's imperialistic and militaristic foreign policy. But I never agreed with his opposition to immigration, and wrote his party headquarters to that effect when he ran for president, pointing out just what Sobrino says concerning the Catholicism of the immigrants from the south.
In fairness to Buchanan it should be pointed out that he opposes not only Spanish but Moslem and Asian immigration for much the same reason, that it is detrimental, in his view, to the cultural unity of this Anglo-American nation if they cannot be assimilated. His opposition, therefore, is to multiculturalism. Which leads to the question of just what defines a culture? It seems to be a fuzzy concept that includes such things as language, religion, literature, art, race or ethnicity, a common history, geography, politics, etc. John Stuart Mill, in chapter 16 of his book "Representative Government," discusses this under the name of "nationality," and raises many of the issues involved, pointing out that none of the attributes just listed is necessary or sufficient by itself. The Catholic historian Christopher Dawson regarded religion as the central element in any culture. It should also be said that the "Culture War" in this country is primarily a moral war, and that as faithful Catholics the Spanish immigrants would be a welcome ally in this conflict.
Buchanan is also more of a nativist than a racist. That he is not a racist should be evident from his selection of an African-American black woman as a running mate in that earlier election campaign.
Nevertheless, I agree that he goes overboard in this latest book, judging from the pre-publication hype (which, however, is consistent with his prior statements on the issue). It is certainly ironic that a descendant of Irish immigrants who suffered from the same brand of nativism should now be advocating it. It is also ironic that this country now attempts to exclude the Mexican immigrants from territory that was forcibly taken from them in the Mexican-American War. As a Mexican-American physician once put it to me, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!"
The real problem, in my view, is the need for the Catholic Church to set up and fund the appropriate structures for ministering to these Catholic immigrants, a task that is especially urgent in that evangelical Protestants hungry for converts are meeting with some success, as they are in various parts of Latin America. It would be a great tragedy if too many of these loyal Catholics were lost to the American Church.
Post a Comment