That was an interesting item about those recreated recordings. I wonder if you have heard about this bit of wizardry.

Thank you for your reply. I think we’re more in agreement than not, but I probably came off as a little harsh. This is obviously a subject that speeds up my pulse.

A little bit of diversity is good for a culture. It reminds citizens that they are not the world, that other people have different ways of life and values.

But we are way beyond a little diversity, or even what I consider a moderate amount of diversity, and population replacement is being forced on us. Nobody was ever elected to Congress on a platform of open borders. No one ever asked Americans to vote in a referendum on whether they wanted Spanish to become a semi-”official” second language. It’s just been done to us.

As far as I’m concerned, we can’t sit back and watch the spreading balkanization. This is our country, not the government’s to give away for the advantage of various privileged classes.

My acquaintance with musicians is hardly as extensive as yours, but I also have been pleased to note the relative lack of racial and ethnic tension among those I have known. They put the music first, because that’s most important to them.

Speaking of music, did you see my posting about Zenph Studios re-creations of past recordings of Art Tatum and Sergei Rachmaninoff? I think it would be interesting to you as a recording engineer.

http://reflight.blogspot.com/2009/11/art-tatum-lives-and-so-does.html

Thanks for your comment (as you can see I do indeed receive notifications when new comments appear).

John Derbyshire uses an apt metaphor in his new book We Are Doomed. He begins by quoting Samuel Huntington’s remark that “a nation is a fragile thing”:

Yes it is, except in the imaginations of blithe optimists, who believe that if a million immigrants are good for your country, then ten million will be ten times as good. Is that how they salt their stew, these people who call themselves conservatives? Fools!”

Quite so. We like a little salt; too much is, well, too much.

You wrote:

If your grandfather entered the country through Ellis Island, you have not used that as an emotional argument for admitting to the United States anyone in the world who doesn’t like it where he is or who lusts after our welfare benefits.

In fact, it was my father, my mother and I who entered the country through New York, when I was five months old. My Scottish mother and London-born father had emigrated to Vancouver in 1954, and we all came to the USA in 1956. I became a naturalized citizen in 1999.

And I think it is a deeply misleading simplification to say that I tout diversity as an end in itself; at the very least it overlooks the important fact that the cultural distance between immigrants and the host culture is an essential factor in assessing their impact. It is one thing to admit a million Swedes, and quite another to admit a million Somali Muslim goatherds.

But I am certainly NOT on board with “forced diversity”, if by that you mean a more-is-better immigration policy that makes no discrimination between the backgrounds of prospective immigrants. Indeed I think at this point that all immigration should be sharply curtailed, and that we should have an absolute halt to immigration of certain groups (I see no benefit whatsoever, for example, to importing any more Muslims.)

You wrote:

Since you are a New Yorker through and through, you can’t really imagine what a non-balkanized society would be like. Beginning in the 19th century, and drastically accelerating since, New York has been a city of tribes, living side by side, mostly tolerating one another. But not really understanding one another, not having much in the way of shared values (except diversity). It sounds to me like, consciously or not, you accept that as the best, if not the only, way of life.

But this is exactly what I have written about here! I don’t know what it is that you think I don’t understand. (I grew up in Princeton, New Jersey, by the way — one of the nation’s foremost bastions of mainstream Anglo-European culture — and I can assure you that moving to New York City was a shock to which I am still adjusting. I also spend much of my time in Wellfleet, Massachusetts — which is probably less diverse than Trondheim, Norway — so I am well aware of the contrasts you mention.)

I think you missed my point about “moderate” diversity. You wrote:

To you, living for years in the urban chaos of New York, what you have might seem like “moderate diversity.” It doesn’t seem moderate to me, and I would suggest, not to very many others from beyond the Hudson.

Please note that in the introduction to this post I described New York as the most diverse place on Earth. So why would you imagine that I think New York represents “moderate” diversity?

When I mentioned a “monoculture of indistinguishable clones” I was myself articulating the straw man that immigration advocates create to caricature the culture they think that people like me (and you) hope to create. It is certainly not anything that one is going to find anywhere around here, now or in the future. Sorry if I wasn’t clearer about that.

Your point about the “self-censorship that diversity requires” is a very good one. In Europe and elsewhere (and apparently at Google, if Mangan’s recent adventure is any indication), self-censorship seem no longer to be sufficent; it is becoming a matter of law.

I have certainly seen some positive aspects of diversity here in New York; I have for more than thirty years been deeply involved in two self-selecting cultural groups that do indeed ignore, to a very great extent, normal racial/ethnic barriers: the music/recording industry (in particular, the world of jazz), and Chinese martial arts. Both of these were far more segregated in the past, and have become far less so in recent decades. There is very little, if any, racial tension, that I am aware of at least, amongst the musicians I know (though in hip-hop circles that can be rather a different story). But as I say, these are self-selecting, arts-related groups, of a sort that are a particular feature of major world cities, and are hardly representative of how society functions as a whole. Outside of these particular (and similar) groups, it’s the same old story here in New York: wariness and occasional flareups, as described above.

So I think we are pretty much of one mind about most of this. If you think you can muster a third cheer, I’ll take it. Two is so unsatisfying.

It’s been a while since your posting, but maybe you have your blog set to notify you of any new comments, so I’ll take a chance.

First: for a New Yorker, you are remarkably rational about immigration. I’m sorry if that sounds like a backhanded compliment, but it is a compliment. Living in the midst of a city where almost everyone worships immigration, it is a sign of independent thought (and perhaps social bravery) to admit to any doubts.

If your grandfather entered the country through Ellis Island, you have not used that as an emotional argument for admitting to the United States anyone in the world who doesn’t like it where he is or who lusts after our welfare benefits.

But it still seems to me that you are touting diversity as an end in itself while acknowledging that it has its downside. There are aspects of it that make you uncomfortable, but you’re on board with forced diversity. (The majority disagrees with the policy of massive, Third World immigration, but their preference counts for nothing.)

Since you are a New Yorker through and through, you can’t really imagine what a non-balkanized society would be like. Beginning in the 19th century, and drastically accelerating since, New York has been a city of tribes, living side by side, mostly tolerating one another. But not really understanding one another, not having much in the way of shared values (except diversity). It sounds to me like, consciously or not, you accept that as the best, if not the only, way of life.

You write: “I appreciate that moderate diversity makes for a much more interesting society, and I am not arguing for monoculture of indistinguishable clones.” Come along, Malcolm. If what we have today in places like New York and Los Angeles is “moderate diversity,” what would greater than moderate diversity be like? A population exactly replicating the whole world? To you, living for years in the urban chaos of New York, what you have might seem like “moderate diversity.” It doesn’t seem moderate to me, and I would suggest, not to very many others from beyond the Hudson.

Where do you find a “monoculture of indistinguishable clones”? You are justifying immigration madness by comparing it to a nonexistent straw man. I went to a large college in the midwest back in the ’60s; despite a leavening of foreign students, some of whom I was friends with, I suppose it was what you would call a monoculture, being probably 90 percent white. Indistinguishable clones? I have never since found, anywhere, such a variety of personalities and ideas. Nor have I ever since found such genuine social interaction and sincerity, in contrast to the self-censorship that diversity requires.

So: let’s see what the benefits of New York’s diversity are.

Foreign restaurants. That’s nice. I enjoy the variety. But if we never admitted another immigrant from now till the end of time, we would still have gastronomic variety to spare. Also, it is rumored that Americans — white Americans, even — can learn to cook dishes from other cultures.

Tourists. They spend money. But frankly, I doubt that most tourists come to New York to experience ethnic diversity. (“Hey, Marge — Orlando is so monocultural! Let’s take our vacation in New York this year! We can see Libyans and Somalis and Puerto Ricans, maybe even some Filipinos!”) They come for the same reason that they have always visited New York, since the days when the population was mostly anglos and Irish — sightseeing. Tall buildings. Fancy hotels. Museums. Shows.

There’s a reason for the old saying, “New York is a great place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.” Could that have something to do with all that vibrant diversity?

And all the other great things about diversity. Uh, I forget what else, but you know. They certainly make up for the “enormous social and financial cost,” as you put it. But it’s only moderate enormous social and financial cost.

Anyway, Malcolm, it’s to your credit that you have halfway freed yourself from the sociological and political monoculture you are immersed in.

I think we’ve got about as far as we are going to get with this conversation, you and I.

And by the way: I’m very much a New Yorker, thank you. I’ve lived here for more than 30 years, and there’s no city I’d rather live in.

Whether diversity between cultures is categorically more dangerous than diversity within is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, because we must deal with any costs arising from diversity within our own culture regardless of our policy regarding external sources. But we do have a choice about whether to introduce further diversity-related costs from outside our own culture.

I already know that you disagree with the position that “fear of cultural diversity” is justified; you’ve made that quite clear. I will point out once more that this is not an accurate summary of the position I am representing here, however. I am not arguing that all diversity is unwelcome, and indeed I have quite explicitly stated the opposite, namely that I think moderate diversity is beneficial. I am questioning only the assumption — I’ll say it again — that the benefits of increasing Diversity always outweigh its costs, and that therefore more Diversity is always better.

You seem to be getting a little hot under the collar here; now my opinions are not simply “mistaken”, but also “offensive”. As usual, when anyone dares to question PC orthodoxy, the response is a swift denunciation in moral terms. (Doubtless I am well on my way to being a “racist” — that convenient place-holder for those wary of multiculturalism — or even a Nazi.)

And again, you resolutely miss my point, as you have all along.

You are right that immigrants have contributed to America’s growth, as Peter also pointed out; I have never denied that. I have written elsewhere that we should not restrict immigration on the basis of race: I think anyone who sincerely wishes to come here, wants to participate in our Western culture, and has something positive to offer ought to be welcomed. The people Peter has described are just such sorts, and I’m glad they’re here.

All I have sought to do in these posts, as I have tried to make clear, has been to question the prevailing ideological viewpoint that diversity is a benefit without a cost, and that therefore a continuing policy favoring maximization of diversity is in America’s best interest. I believe this is a misguided ideology, and one that will have a deliquescent effect on our culture. Where diversity is celebrated above unity, unity will decrease.

Diversity within our own culture will be there regardless; why, then, should we feel the need to seek external sources of faction and discord? We have an amply diverse society already, and that isn’t about to change; all I am doing here is to question the strange and ahistorical notion that more Diversity is always better.

You invoke, of all people, Nietzsche to characterize my position as “weak”. But when we lose the ability to distinguish between those cultural imports that enrich our society and those that threaten it, but choose instead a timorous and etiolating relativism in which we shrink, in pigeon-hearted fear of giving offense, from making any judgments or discriminations whatsoever of quality, value, or moral rectitude — and in which all cultures, no matter how foreign or inimical to our own, are are declared by fiat to be of absolutely equal merit, and certain in all cases to enrich our society by their aggressive expansion and inclusion — is that not a dangerous weakness?

Finally, that there is not a consensus among social scientists on this most ideologically freighted of all social issues is hardly surprising — but that there is no such consensus hardly demonstrates, as you seem to be arguing, that my position is false. It simply shows that this is a contentious topic.

Despite these two obvious and glaring rebuttals to your position, and despite my pointing out that New York City — and by extension America — has succeeded beyond our wildest imagination in spite of or in my view partly because of its unmatched history of diversity and immigration, you continue on in what can only be characterized as a weak position of raising a false alarm about the danger posed by non-white immigrants in America, which ironically only serves to sow discord between what is a fairly robust alliance among different racial and ethnic groups in America. (To get an idea how strong that alliance is, ask your 1st and 2nd generation immigrant friends where they would prefer to live, in America or back in their homeland. You would be surprised)

I understand your position somewhat. Any ethnic majority of any country would get jittery about the demographic changes now taking place in America. But that doesn’t change the fact that your position is weak and made even weaker by the fact that it is unwarranted — for example, somebody like Nietzsche would despise you for being holding such a philosophy.

Peter’s examples of the “guy from India” as well as the “guy from Russia” are no counterparts to the guy from say, Swat Valley of even perhaps the Khyber Pass. Neither of these wish, in even the most extreme of wishing, wish to effect a change from the occasional flogging to the presumption of innocence.

Perhaps if Peter were to transfer from Silicon Valley where a certain sort of magic occurs to say, the Tribal Hinterlands of Pakistan and subject himself to the vagaries but “just” proscribed (and arbitrarily adjudged) shariyah to witness “that particular magic” I might be more inclined to accept the Pollyannish.