Ethnic identity, reminding Americans of what they're missing
While searching on youtube for
the latest Coldplay song that's played on every station all the time, I ran across
this fascinating 20 minute documentary-short called "The Tribe" about the Jewish identity. At times it speaks obvious truths, at other times it speaks subtle ones, but at every point it stands so starkly in contrast with the identity that Americans want to have: that of the post-racial and post-ethnic ethic of "multiculturalism" as distinct from those who still proclaim such identities. It's interesting that white identity is now only acceptable in the most superficial of Irish identities: rooting for the Red Sox and putting the four-leaf clover on everything, as well as beer on St. Patrick's day. Being part Irish, I think this is silly. Being a mix of a few other identities, I think there's much to honor, celebrate and rejoice in that we blissfully ignore. My friend and talented writer Dan Flynn once mentioned to me in passing that such discussions about racial identity were something that was "not his bag" and he had little interest in. So, even among conservative intellectuals, this topic is either avoided, ignored or discussed very superficially. To think that someone of French descent would say, believe and defend the idea that French culture and history is superior to that of British, German and all others, is a discussion quite foreign to our conditioned minds. And so this film fills a void and through talking about one of the few acceptable distinct identities: Jews, it perhaps suggests that the rest of us, those who find that this is "not our bag" might be truly missing out on large parts of our identity. We think we know what we don't know, we think we're so enlightened compared to our ancestors who we glibly dismiss as "racist" for their "ethno-centric" beliefs. But yet I think most of us know, deep down, that those identities mean quite a bit, and define not only who we have been in the past, and who are right now, but who we will be in the future. I knew a girl who had French features, and probably French ancestry, but was convinced she was purely Irish. I knew another who thought herself English only to find out later she was more Irish than English. Neither fact seemed to play much into their personalities, but it should have-- it should matter. It does matter, but we try so hard to make it not matter. Why is it so important that our world be deprived of beautiful French women and Irish women and truly celebrate those distinctions rather than cover them up so poorly. The Jews have done a great job of preserving their identity through some of the toughest historical periods and situations imaginable, and yet in this land of prosperity, Europeans can't retain theirs at all. This is both strange and sad.
Labels: culture, race
Nationalization is Socialism in every country but this one.
The Treasury department has now
effectively nationalized Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as this very lengthy Wall Street Journal article explains. And the rationale for this is that no one wants to default on these loans and start foreclosing on houses where loans shouldn't have been approved in the first place. If you want to read between the lines as to what this means, you'll have to consult
the always prescient Steve Sailer, who explains that
this is the "diversity recession" caused by foolish loans to those who were completely unqualified to handle them, but who benefited from having the right skin color. And now, after assuming this debt, the government gets to make another crisis within a current one, by writing loans to these clowns, and taking equity within the companies. Not only is the federal bank a perpetual donor, it is now going to be an owner. This will have disastrous consequences for the financial industry later on.
And we ought to be more outraged and more alarmed by this. We would call it socialism or nationalization elsewhere. The long history of antipathy towards Fidel Castro stemmed in no small part from his nationalization of industries in Cuba in 1959, we effectively okayed the assassination of
Allende in Chile in 1973 when he moved to nationalize industries there and institute socialism. And I don't point these things out in order to castigate them, rather, quite appropriately, to demonstrate how serious it is when this nationalization effort happens. It affects an entire country, it screws up the financial industry, and it throws economies into chaos. The US foreign policy gets criticism from all sides, but I don't think it's legitimate when it undertook actions to stabilize the world and provide the security for countries to keep doing business. A Pax Americana based on trade and free markets is at least a predictable, stable and a relatively fair one. But now, we are clearly in the midst of a rule by emotional appeal to the masses, mob rule.
When
Hugo Chavez nationalizes foreign industries, it's appropriately labeled socialism. When we nationalize our own financial industry to protect it against a preferred political class of voters, a de facto ruling elite (noting that the actual ruling elite simply relies on this class of voters), it's... somehow different.
When Bush
promises "
universal home ownership" in his state of the union, who was he appealing to? He was promising wealth from the homeowners to those who didn't have the means to own one. It was a power-play, and socialism. It is mindless "equity" in the most base of material ways. We think, "houses" and say, "happy" but we don't wonder whether the same things that cause a man to be in debt or financially unstable might cause him to lack the stability needed to keep that house. Or the many people in this country whose jobs are too transient to be in one place long enough for a 20-30 year mortgage. I recall discussing this aspect of Bush's policies with conservative friends, and everyone came back to the same essentially liberal line: that all our minority problems will just go away, crime will finally come down, education will go up, drug use will go away, when minorities are "invested" and are part of this great "ownership society" and feel like "stockholders" in their community.
How silly. How naive. And how foolish of myself that I didn't see through those arguments.
We are reaping what we have sown. We elected a soft socialist who didn't want "the soft bigotry of low expectations" and proclaimed how "compassionate" he was, and despite all the hype and hope, and the hyped hope, we got what it really was: socialism, just in small doses. Shame on us for not seeing this for what it truly was, and for trying to buy our way out of racial discord. The result will no doubt be more chaos and instability in the financial markets, and bring about more racial discord when these homes finally default, and will lead to greater government control over the economy which will, again, promote more inefficiencies and economic uncertainty.
Labels: Bush, Economics, government, policy, politics, race
Sitting amongst political scientists and seeing hope
So I snuck into the
APSA conference in Boston for a few sessions. It was good, and I enjoyed it, specifically the sections on "
Urban Politics" -- it made me get back into the professorial mindset, and being amongst them helped rekindle that atmosphere of academia. While in one session, though, I witnessed quite a discussion: the urban politics crowd discussing whether they ought to 'come clean' about their own values, and hence, their own bias. They freely talked about how white flight was due solely to racism, and yet, during this limited discussion, they opined that perhaps these suburban families desired the peace, security and tranquility of that life. The features of "
urbanity" such as the creativity that comes from constantly being on one's toes, perhaps, doesn't appeal to all-- and that it appeals to intellectuals who enjoy city life, should tell them that perhaps they simply don't understand the suburban ethic. I was shocked to hear this, especially since the discussion was so frank, and, well, so honest. Even leftist intellectuals desire to be thorough and many are trying hard to be good academics, they are, in my opinion, simply conditioned so hard that they end up with
confirmation bias: so that the only reason whites could move out of the cities is due to racism and not, as I suspect, due more to
crime than anything else.
Labels: academia, politics, race, racism
The roads to serfdom and bankruptcy ought to be renamed Bush Blvd.
Apparently
the Fed is talking about taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Welcome to the socialist state given to us by President Bush and the Federal Reserve. No one is held to blame, no one is even properly condemned for this mess, and the entire economy and taxpayers end up footing the bill, potentially nearly doubling the national debt in one stroke by assuming the $5 trillion in debt held by the two. Granted, most of that won't sour, but the implications are staggering, and the involvement by the government into the economy is perpetual. That this is even being discussed makes my stomach turn at the thought of a Bush presidency. One cannot allow a country to be systemically taken apart as his most inept and incompetent administration has, and not be repulsed by the staggering idiocy of his advisers and himself. This President is even more foolish than the worst of his leftist detractors, and will ensure the financial ruin of this country through the reckless budgets he has agreed to, and the reckless spending he has proposed, and these reckless policies which are destroying the economy. Such is the cost of easy money from the Fed, and
insane lending mandates to cover borrowers who cannot afford them or keep a job long enough to make consistent payments.
Labels: Bush, Economics, race
