with the accompanying patronization of those who believe that learning Spanish is not an indicator of the cultural receptiveness or a measure of the egalitarian notions that they may harbor.

I was referring to Suki’s quote above . Now unless there’s some thriving national debate about whether to have 1 official language, or 4-5, I would say the quote is less than disingenuous–what Tancredo conservatives believe is that Christendom is threatened by an avalanche of cultures ill-suited to these conservatives’ varying visions of The West, not a conflict between foreign institutions (like speaking spanish in the spanish-speaking world) and American liberal institutions. Buckley seems to agree, from the quote you supplied earlier, and inferred that whatever you subjectively decide is a social norm must therefore be more conducive to harmony and prosperity. also, i never called Buckley a racist–but would love to hear, in a non-queeya-dismissing-manner, what principles and/or legal scholarship led him to approve of running those words?

You could make a so-so argument against the methods of desegregation now (considering the success rate), but as you say, imposing the values of today on events of incredible historical import is sheer folly.

I’m no minarchist when it comes to issues that affect a significant portion of the population, I believed that the Federal government was entirely correct in imposing the Constitutional interpretation of human values when it came to the civil rights act – the argument was over whether not whether the interpretation was correct or not, but whether the means to impose the interpretation were. I think it was due time to send in the National Guard, seeing how little progress there had been since Lincoln took the first step over a 100 years ago – but other people didn’t and that was the argument.

Going back to Jyotsana’s reference to Eichmann; if you have noticed me before, I’m very pro-Israel but equating Buckley to a racist for saying that the Eichmann trail was happening at a wrong time is confusing realism and the socio-political situation at the time with the views based on the values and information of today. It is like the people at VDARE suggesting that Roanoke was an instance of anti-immigrant violence against whites. What we know as the holocaust was not well known or depicted separately from the 30 million deaths in EUrope during WW-II until well into the late 50′s and early 60′s. I don’t need to point out the importance of Germany during the Cold War, specially during its beginning. Buckley’s problem was with the media circus that was set up around someone, who at that point was seen as a “German War Criminal.” He believed that the political relationship with Germany should not be affected by bringing up wounds of the past. It was only during Eichmann’s trial that Holocaust survivors testified and their stories were finally heard by America and the world. After that, Buckley became a huge supporter of Israel and the “Zionist” cause. Buckley is a racist as much as the Pope is a Nazi.

judging by the amount of exclamation marks used, I guess so–but do explain.

So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

Color me young and unenthusiastic about Lew Rockwell.com, but how does this translate as ‘true libertarian’ thought? Were segregated lunch counters, public transportation and schooling the cultural norms necessary for a prosperous and peaceful South?

oh no, let’s go straight to the famous unsigned editorial:

Then why not quote other parts from it too…

The problem in the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to equip the Negro–and a great many Whites–to cast an enlightened and responsible vote. The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve teh Negro as a servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

It is easy to take parts of a message and call it racist. Next thing I know, you’ll be calling Barry Goldwater racist. Al Gore’s dad said the same things, except due to political opportunism rather than due to any real libertarian notions or the idea that States should be able to make their own decisions.

To the poster in Comment 34., Radhika, to me Eurocentrism is not a pejorative but is instead illustrated in the values of the Enlightenment. The values that formed the core of the values of this country and the constitution; free speech, separation of Church and state, homogeneity – the values that Europe is being deprived of right now due to its rising “minority” population.

In our euphoria about imposing Spanish (which people like me learn on a voluntary basis, for reasons ranging from fun to an increased paycheck) and electing a fellow minority to office, we are letting go of more universal concepts like “equality.”

As someone pointed out earlier – it is entirely delusional to think that in the majority of the constituencies of the United States Whites and to some extent Asians, vote based on color; so lets stop trying to make it out that we as people of Indian descent need to “get back at Europeans” for whatever reason or align ourselves with any other minority just because they are a minority too.

And finally: 27 · Nayagan on August 19, 2008 05:11 AM · Direct link · “Quote”(?) Statement 1: I think we should also stipulate that all excessive comma usage, abuse of declarative sentences and all sorts of incorrect punctuation be punished with 50 lashes of a cane made from patriotic pine/maple.

Statement 2: Being able to speak 4-5 languages shouldn’t be regarded as a sign of intelligence or as evidence of a ‘gift’ for learning new languages, but as a black stain upon that person’s soul–black India ink, leaving tell-tale signs of gross over-education as it tellingly drips from the craven polyglot immigrant’s breast, as it mocks the very constitutional values that made us a thankfully heterogeneous nation.

That has got to be some of the most subtly jarring cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !

23 · JGandhi said

Uhh…conservatives aren’t against learning foreign langauges. Conservatives are arguing that English ought to be the primary langauge of the United States and that having a second, third or fourth official language weakens American values and national unity. They are also arguing that immigrants who arrive to the United States should be expected to learn English and bilingualism hinders immigrants from learning English.

I refer to NR/NRO. There may well be many conservatives who are for learning foreign languages. For instance the Texas GOP opposes any public role for Spanish – its website does not have a Spanish version link, its platform demands a rollback of the official use of Spanish. The national GOP has a more friendly position towards Spanish, more realistic maybe?

You are conflating the issue of learning foreign languages with the issue of bilingualism. The National Review’s position is that English ought to be the sole national and official language of the United States. People can study Sanskrit or Spanish if they wish but that doesn’t mean Sanskrit or Spanish ought to be elevated to official languages.

Just because one doesn’t support making a language an official language of the US doesn’t mean one is against people being fluent in that language. The distinction really isn’t that hard to grasp.

I will not repeat the contemptuous expletives with which a certain Native American advocate (also with Jewish ancestry) had for Mrs. Obama, her Ivy League oppression and her oh-so-Christian church. Obama she has little regard for, but thinks if he did a 4 year term, he’d do less harm than McCain. Anyway, this NativeAmerican advocate is congenitally unable to pull a Republican lever. However–just let anybody try and funnel her tax money to certain Obama causes. Well, I can’t be responsible for her fury. She’s got quite a mouth on her.

Plenty of people are voting for him only because of his race. Race usually trumps everything else, depending on where you live and how many of “you” there are, percentage wise. I’ll have to check stats, but my observation is that black majority cities such as D.C., Detroit have not voted for a white mayor since the 70s, but mostly white Seattle has had a black mayor, as has San Francisco. Asians, desis and whites are most likely to vote for an “other race” candidate, whites because enough of them still feel they their system works for them (especially in places like San Francisco and Seattle) and Asians because they have little choice. However, the higher education level of desis might make it likely more of us “transcend” race–as long as we feel the system works for us. Still, it comes down to money and taxes. If people feel a lot of their taxes are going to support their “enemies” they get annoyed. To me, it is desirable to know your history, keep what’s worth keeping, and assimilate into the culture of country in which you are living. I think this country is seriously divided. People feel a low level of trust for persons of a different race in seats of power. People of working class and lower middle class especially have no trust for other races in seats of power. I don’t see that changing. Mistrust and suspicion of government is fully warranted, even when the race of the governors is the same as those governed.

Uhh…conservatives aren’t against learning foreign langauges. Conservatives are arguing that English ought to be the primary langauge of the United States and that having a second, third or fourth official language weakens American values and national unity. They are also arguing that immigrants who arrive to the United States should be expected to learn English and bilingualism hinders immigrants from learning English.

I refer to NR/NRO. There may well be many conservatives who are for learning foreign languages. For instance the Texas GOP opposes any public role for Spanish – its website does not have a Spanish version link, its platform demands a rollback of the official use of Spanish. The national GOP has a more friendly position towards Spanish, more realistic maybe?

I have no problem with that Nayagan. Well you be in Vancouver anytime soon. But for some reason, I don’t think you have the guts to show up in Vancouver and be the one who gives me the 50 lashes.

I’m sure Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant would be able to accommodate this request. Or I could call up my polyglot relatives who are currently engaged in such anti-Canadian pursuits as ice hockey and accounting, but I doubt they’d find it acceptable.

Thanks for the tip.