The Melting Pot or Several Savage Dogs

“When their children are grown up to be fit for such conversation as talk and play, they permit them not the least society with the Mohammedan children . . . that hereby they may timely possess them with an averseness towards all Mohammedanism . . .”

“As for the divine mysteries of Christianity, the Jews represent them to their children in such monstrous shapes, that they are fitter for their affrightment than embracing.” 

Lancelot Addison, The Present State of the Jews: More Particularly Relating to those in Barbary (1675)

When a small minority dwells amidst a host population, it normally takes on the language and culture of its host.  This is called assimilation, and it will occur unless strong obstacles are raised by the minority or host population.  If the minority wishes to preserve the purity of its culture (and blood), it must follow the path of separatism, and separatism requires it to “possess” its children “with an averseness” for the host population.  It must severely restrict association with members of the host culture and represent that culture “in monstrous shapes.”

When the minority is not so very small, and the majority wishes to preserve the purity of its culture (and blood), the majority must permanently quarantine the minority population in a ghetto, and must also defame the minority culture in the eyes of its children. As Lancelot Addison says, cultural survival requires some amount of “affrightment” to maintain the cordon sanitaire that divides—and preserves—the two groups.

Cultural and biological diversity disappears in the absence of a cordon sanitaire, particularly in our age of global transport and communication, when mountains, oceans and malarial swamps no longer stand as natural barriers.  When natural divisions are destroyed and social substitutes are not supplied, a fusion of culture (and blood) will necessarily follow.  The process of fusion will be accelerated if all social barriers, “averseness” and “affrightment” are simultaneously destroyed.

Thus, an advocate of diversity is logically committed to social and spatial segregation, and should look with horror at any attempt to pull such obstacles down.  That advocates of diversity actually oppose segregation suggests that they are either morons or liars.

Advocates of diversity are likewise logically committed to a jus connubi that would have pleased Lester Maddox, since miscegenation necessarily leads to loss of diversity.  Israel Zangwill’s play The Melting Pot is an inter-racial Romeo and Juliet story, albeit with a happier ending.  Here is how the play was described by the Baltimore Sun in 1909.

“Israel Zangwill’s vision [is] of the United States as a vast melting pot, in which the diverse races of Europe are to be melted down into . . . homogeneous human metal . . . reducing us all to a common American type.”

You may yearn for this day when “diverse races” have been reduced to a “homogenous human metal,” but you may not call that day a triumph of diversity.  On that day there will be no diversity at all.

Here is a stern lesson in diversity maintenance, taken from the history of the Italian colony in Brazos County, Texas.  This was one of the largest Italian farming communities in the United States, and it diversifies our county right down to this day.

“The Italian does not associate with the Bohemian or American except in a business way, and then only when it is absolutely necessary . . . . Only one case of intermarriage has occurred in the history of the colony.  In that instance, an Italian married an American girl.  After the marriage, they found themselves ostracized by their friends, both American and Italian, and therefore moved away.” (Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911)).

“The Italian farmers have little good will for negroes and negroes greatly fear vicious dogs. Accordingly, practically every Italian farmer kept one to a dozen savage dogs to keep the negroes at a respectful distance.” (Thesis, Cornell University (1917)).

I do not think that these Italians would win any diversity awards from our Provost and Executive Vice President for Diversity, but that is only because she either hates diversity, has no idea what it means, or sees it simply as a battle cry.

If her office actually sought to “enhance diversity,” it would encourage

Cultivation of “Averseness”
Inculcation of “Affrightment”
Spatial Segregation
Social Exclusion
Strict Endogamy
Ostracism of Defectors
Several Savage Dogs

It’s either that or the melting pot.

13 thoughts on “The Melting Pot or Several Savage Dogs

  1. Pingback: The Melting Pot or Several Savage Dogs | Reaction Times

    • I know there’s not much point to doing it, but writing keeps me out of other sorts of trouble. I also have a gauge feeling that lies should be contradicted, even if no one ever reads or hears the contradiction. It’s probably magical thinking, but, then again, that would explain why I cannot help myself.

  2. Please allow me to hijack the latest post to talk about something else. I find myself inching away from atheism, but two big obstacles are 1) why does faith and belief even matter, and not just actions 2) how the heck is faith and belief in an *incorrect* idea of God better than no belief? And yes, if I read Feser most believers believe in an incorrect idea of God, they believe in God as a Big Object, not as the Simple Unchanging Ground of Being.

    My thoughts so far:

    3) Christianity is about Christ, not the God of the Philosophers. Christ, the God-Man is far easier to understand correctly than the God of the Philosophers. Although, homousion, homoiusion… maybe not so easy.

    4) But they are saying you don’t have to do all this work yourself. You just knock on Christ’s door. He opens it. It is not a big problem if you don’t recognize all His properties exactly right from the beginning. What matters is that you two are in contact now.

    5) Okay, but if you see a door with “Christ” written on it, how do you know it is really Christ behind that door and not a tricky demon? And the answer is that you must trust the Church to show you the right door. Church as people and institutions. Jon Haidt said religion is a team sport. Maybe searching for Christ or God on your own as an individual is fundamentally wrong. You have to participate in the community somehow. Get all this through the community, the Church.

    6) Does this follow that it is entirely okay to go to church and participate in the Mass even if you have no faith, hoping it will come? Or how else does one resolve this dilemma?

    7) The problem is that most of the current Church and especially the Pope… yeah, you know it already. Not very good. I am already a reactionary, if atheist. If I go to a church and they show me the door to Liberalism instead of the door to Christ I will just say “LOL” and leave.

    • I am no evangelist, but since you’re unlikely to get an answer if not from me, I’ll do what I can. (1) Faith and belief mean faith and belief in God, not a set of theological propositions. Faith and belief in God mean faith and belief in his love and providence, not simple belief in his existence. Correct doctrine comes later and needn’t go beyond the ancient creeds. (2) My idea of the planet Uranus is highly imperfect, but it is closer to the truth than the idea that there is no planet Uranus. (3) The trinitarian formula is necessary for Christianity to survive as Christianity. Jewish Christians who rejected it went back to being Jews. Gentile Christians who rejected it became Liberals. (4) I think this is right, but you should not expect fireworks if you’re not a highly emotional person. This was long a hangup for me. (5) Worshiping in a community teaches humility. Intellectuals are particularly in need of it because it teaches them the unimportance of theological wrangling. Kneeling next to an ignorant and vulgar person of faith is good for your soul. (6) I think this depends on your personality. The mass might attract you or disgust you. I started going to mass in my early forties, but didn’t feel moved to join the Church for a few years. One Sunday I became aware of the fact that that is what I was going to do. (7) I know this problem very well, and sometimes write about it here. When the homily is social justice flapdoodle, I just admire our stained glass windows. Weathering storms of social justice flapdoodle is something everyone must learn to do nowadays.

      • Convert (from nothing) here, and longtime Orthospherean reader. I’m not sure if I’ve ever commented here.
        I can concur with JMSmith’s replies, above. I would add:
        (6 & 7) Yes – start going to Mass and just soak in it. But especially without immediate recourse to the Eucharist (but even once you do have recourse, down the road), the sensory and catechetical power of the Mass will be limited, if not downright erroneous and counterproductive, if you stumble into any old SJW-suburban-infantilized-cartoonified Novus Ordo parish.

        Find a Latin Mass. Or a Byzantine Mass if there’s no TLM to be found near you.

    • If I may answer from a not necessarily Christian point of view.
      1) actions are a consequence of something
      2) it gives a better perspective than measuring yourself to something lower
      3) you assume intellectual understanding is a necessity
      4) knocking on the door actually requires an impressive amount of work
      5) you don’t, that’s why it is faith; it isn’t a team sport, but you do require somebody to show you the way, so trust has to be put somewhere
      6) why wouldn’t it be ok?
      7) every human will make mistakes; one such mistake would be to close a door without a good reason

  3. Sorry, another offtopic, but I am really curious. I don’t entirely understand the Catholic position on divorce. The purpose of marriage is to make and raise kids. Yet the Church is saying separation is okay, just remarriage is not. I think separation already destroys the purpose of making more kids or raising the current ones together. Remarriage would actually enable one to start making new kids and raise them. So what is the reasoning? Separation without remarriage leads to the usual single mother problems plus a man being lonely. What is the use in that?

    • I believe the Catholic view of marriage is a little more complicated than this. A family does not exist solely to make and raise children, although that is a core function. A family also civilizes the man and his wife, and it fixes their relationships to a number of other adults. The civilizing function only works if man and wife cannot break free the minute their freedom is constrained, and the relationship function works best if by my relations “by marriage” remain the same. My relation to a sister-in-law is weak to begin with, so it helps if she’s my sister-in-law for life. There are transcendental aspects as well, so the Catholic view of marriage goes beyond the sensible conservative view. One last thing. I mentioned in my response to your first comment that slightest relaxation of the Trinitarian formula leads in time to apostasy. I think the view of the Church is that admission of a little divorce leads in time to universal divorce. Once you yield to the really hard-luck cases, there will be only slightly less hard-luck cases clamoring for the same. Since there is no limiting principle, you are on a slippery slope to no-fault divorce. Experience shows that the Church was right about this. I think the same logic stands behind its teaching on abortion. If you yield to the hard-luck cases (which certainly exist), you will sooner or later have elective abortion on demand.

  4. Dividualist, this is probably not the place for a discussion of the issues (not all of them obvious) involved. But you might want to inform yourself about Eastern Orthodoxy and about the Lutheran Confessions. These are thoroughly Trinitarian, but they understand the matter of divorce and the possibility of remarriage differently from official Roman Catholicism, without being apostate.
    Dale Nelson

  5. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 09/15/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.