Monday, March 12, 2007

SOME OBSERVATIONS BY A "FIGLIO DELLA COSTA"

NON-ITALIAN READERS OF 'LA NOSTRA COSTA' OFTEN MAKE THE FOLLOWING COMMENT AND OBSERVATION: "IT SURE IS A WONDER THAT ALL THOSE ITALIANS AND THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, LIVING AND WORKING ON THE NORTH COAST OF SANTA CRUZ DURING THE '30s AND 40s, MADE IT IN THE US WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF WELFARE, FREE MEDICAL CARE, AND WITHOUT ITALIAN AS A SECOND LANGUAGE IN THE SCHOOLS. 'FIGLIO DELLA COSTA' JERRY MUNGAI SUBMITS A POIGNANT ARTICLE FROM THE 'NATIONAL REVIEW'. JERRY INVITES YOUR COMMENTS. 'CLICCA' ON COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE.




We continue to hear and read these days about how diversity is our great national strength and how we are all immigrants. As many of us are either children or grandchildren of legal immigrants, I thought the observations below are interesting as they pertain to today's immigrants. The comments are by Theodore Dalrymple in an article published in a recent issue of the National Review about Muslims in Britain. I believe the observations are as valid for the U.S. today as they are about Britain. I'd be interested in your thoughts on these issues. Here are the observations:

"Multiculturalism starts out with the premise that it is for the hostcountry to understand and accommodate its immigrants, and not for immigrants to understand the host country and, within a preexisting framework of rights and duties, accommodate themselves to it. And the theory of race relations suggests that the only possible reason for different outcomes (in m\such measures as income and educational level)of the many ethnic groups that make up a cosmopolitan society such asBritain's is racial prejudice and discrimination. The reason these two orthodoxies have been so eagerly accepted in Britain-by both the government and a significant and important, though perhaps not numerous,part of the educated population-is that they provide the opportunity for bureaucratic employment. This helps to reduce unemployment, at least inthe short term, and to create a focus of political patronage andloyalty. The expectation that immigrants should learn English, forexample, would reduce the opportunity for translators."

Comments?
Jerry


6 comments:

ivanofranco said...

>
Jerry: Very interesting premise. I always thought it was kind of against a social workers' self-interest to actually get people off the welfare rolls.
A reduction in the number of people on welfare, would most likely mean a
reduction in social worker jobs that depend on that particular type of clientele. ivn0

jerry mungai said...

You are right about social workers,translators, "affordable housing" workers,etc. They
must always pray that demand always exceeds supply; otherwise they would
be out of a job! When supply and demand are in equilibrium, they just change the criteria for eligibility for help. So, if $80K or less qualifies one for home loans; then let's raise it to $100K.

What is unbelievable is that the electorate goes for this stuff. And of course, our church supports it in the name of "human diginity" and social justice.

Jerry

Franca Gargiulo said...

Many thanks Jerry! A very interesting article. There have always been those afraid of testing their entreprenuerial spirit gifts and instead, rely on "helping" those who are "downtrodden."

carol said...

About this diversity article - I agree. United goals have kept our country
together. We have imported people from terrible countries. They are not used to trusting a government, only family. Several years ago a reporter
went from southern California up through Oregon, or maybe Washington, and
interviewed young people about this faith and loyalty to our government. It
was in Atlantic Monthly. Sad to say, these people had little feeling of
loyalty for this country. They cared about themselves, money, etc. When
asked if they would support U.S. military efforts, they said they would not.
People come for the economy and this is what we get. I think the San Jose
City Council would think this is fine as long as there is a sob story in
with it. When the money is gone, we have anarchy.

Brenda Walker wrote about a couple from India who just went through the
citizenship process. They stated they became citizens because it was more
convenient to have an American passport. I suppose they waved a little
American flag at the swearing in ceremony too. So now we are the world's
concenience store.

Carol

jerrry said...

Carol has some good input. I agree with her. Whenever I
hear that a certain group of immigrants have
strong "family values" I read that to mean that where
they come from, the only ones to be trusted are your
own family members because the government is so
corrupt. Just look at Philippines, China, Mexico,
etc.

Hank Bradley said...

Well, 'diversity' to its purveyors seems to mean an enforced diversity of everything except opinions. Entire university speech codes are devoted to the prevention of 'wrong' or candid opinions.

By these codes, it seems that the one who is most 'offended' by an opinion gains control of the discussion, and sets off a process resulting in a quasi-legal punishment of the speaker. Taking offense used to be a simple gimmick to start a bar fight, but now is a protected road to political power.