Re: Part I response (Desirability of Integration)

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by Vincent ( on May 04, 2002 at 00:47:35:

In Reply to: Part I response (Desirability of Integration) posted by Brett Zamir on May 03, 2002 at 11:11:58:

I remember a time when it actually made a difference whether one was from New York or Texas. These places had their own cultures. Now we just distinguish between white, black, Mexican, and so on. I think what we've lost from the older form of diversity, is more than anything we've gained from the newer form.

This isn't to say that the states shouldn't have cooperated--or that America shouldn't cooperate with Mexico--only that we should be very careful with social change. We have to ask of each communtity, "Is this group of people worthy of mixing with us? What do they really have to offer?" This isn't like marriage, which can always be cancelled with a divorce. Population movements, and the civilizations which fall victim to them, can be restored only rarely, and with great sacrifice.

Look what happened to the U.S.. It used to be that students would learn Latin and Greek in school. Now they study Spanish, or just nothing (since hard classes discriminate against disadvantaged groups). Or else English, since that is increasingly becoming a foreign language now.

It used to be that people would care whether one was Methodist or Presbyterian, Armenian or Calvinist. Now nobody knows the difference anymore, and Christians can barely tell Protestant from Catholic, apart from the institution of the papacy. A century ago, George W. would have been hooted from the podium for giving "Jesus" as the name of his favorite political philosopher.

Now Baha'is want to combine us with...well, everybody, really. Do you honestly believe this will be a step *up*?

this topic is closed - post at