Reposting an exchange I had with someone a while ago:
Him: A lot of this is me just working this out, thinking out loud, etc. No, I don't want to destroy all the distinctions. I am interested in seeing cordial and peaceful relationships though between tribes, as much as possible, anticipating Rev. 7. All this cannot happen without the impact and influence of Christ. I'm also interested in persons who thoughtfully marry others of different races, even as I realize the precariousness of this.Me: It's usually a case of solipsism (if it involves you personally) or pedantry (if it doesn't) to lose sight of the big picture by getting lost in exploring the ramifications of the exceptions. The whole discussion upthread about adoption into the nation, and stuff—yeah, sure, of course that happens. But it's irrelevant because the exceptional individual of some other cultural background who is accepted and adopted into the host culture doesn't fundamentally change the host culture. It's MASS immigration in sufficient numbers that they set up rival cultural poles that compete with the host culture that is the issue under discussion.
So T— has remarked here before that he's married to a Hispanic wife. So what? The fact that I don't want the US to be inundated under a flood of Mexican and Central American invaders doesn't mean that I care that he's married to a Hispanic wife. The atomized example is not the big picture. Nobody cares who T— marries. That's his affair, not ours. The same is true for any cross-national marriages.
But in a healthy culture, those examples do not create schwerpunkts or cultural beachheads. In societies that practice exogamous marriage, those who marry in from outside often hyper-correct and are more culturally strict in their adoption of the local culture in order to fit in. Only in weak, sick, and dying cultures do we see big enclaves of competing cultures established side by side, and the inevitable result of such is conflict. Not necessarily violent, depending on what the cultures are, but the potential always exists.
And those who come from other cultural traditions can, at times, bring with them new practices that the natives like and eventually adopt. Texas, for example, was settled by the Scots-Irish and other Borderer people, who mostly came from Tennessee and whatnot in the early 1800s. The ethnic Mexican population of the area was not high, and they were genetically insignificant for the most part, except in the absolute most southerly part of the State, which was ceded to the US as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and wasn't settled by Anglo-Texians until after that point. That doesn't mean that Texans didn't adopt Spanish vaquero traditions to emerge as the quintessential American cowboy, and that Texas cuisine, even in the heavily Anglo population doesn't feature tacos and frijoles and stuff like that. Cultural syncretism isn't necessarily a bad thing, and America isn't lesser because the American cowboy is ultimately the continuation of a Spanish tradition rather than the traditional southern cowherder tradition of walking alongside your herd with a stick which we inherited from our Anglo-Saxon forebears.
And to your point about what Revelations and other scriptures tell us what to expect; well, no matter how much I love Western civilization and find that it suits me quite well, that doesn't mean that it's perfect and doesn't have its flaws. Someday I can expect the perfect civilization, ruled by Christ himself at the head, but I don't worry too much about trying to create that ahead of time using human means—that's not far from the heresy of Babel, after all. I think that in the meantime, differing cultures coexisting peacefully and separated by well-defined borders which help to keep that coexistence peaceful, is the best we can do. It's obviously better than we ARE doing, but it's something that we can at least aspire to.
Someone Else (referring specifically to my first sentence): And often it's deliberate sophistry. After all, we're looking at issues involving human populations, and of statistical truth. The are no clean, bright lines. It's not geometry. Someone who chooses to focus on anecdotal exceptions is either laboring under significant cognitive limitations, is engaging in deliberate sophistry, or has been indoctrinated into suppressing normal reasoning processes when questions important to the narrative arise.
Yet Another Someone Else: We can, and have, accommodated assimilable immigrants. This land was settled and built primarily by people of Anglo-Celtic origin, i.e. from the British Isles. It is an inextricable part of the demeanor, attitude, values, and legal concepts of the country. The most readily assimilable immigrants were those who came from the same British Isles, after that the cousins of northwest continental Europe, after that the more distant cousins of southern and eastern Europe, and after that assimilability rapidly drops off—to the point of outright absurdity as we have seen in the wake of the 1965 Immigration Act.Here's an additional thought (courtesy of Facebook memories) that I had on this topic:
1 Timothy 5:8—"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
Galatians 6:10—"As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."
Matthew 15: 26—"But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs."
Christ did not teach "give away your country to anyone who comes along and wants to take it." It is not right—it is, in fact, according to Paul, a denial of the faith and worse than an infidel, to forsake one's own people. Let's get rid of the profoundly stupid rhetoric that unlimited immigration means "love" and "I'd like to preserve my nation as an heirloom for my children" means "HATE." That is a vicious lie and doesn't even make any sense.
The verse from Matthew describes my preferred immigration strategy. This is OUR nation and it is not meet to take from our own children to give to others. Curiously, the next two verses make exceptions for those of exceptional skills or virtues. Look at that!
For those who are in dire straits in foreign lands, we can help them, and we should, for such is virtuous and a demonstration of love of our neighbor, as commanded by Christ. That does NOT mean that they have a right to come to America. Even the Good Samaritan just took his victim to an inn in the next town, not to his land of Samaria. Our biggest problem is that we don't even bother finding out if who we bring here are victims or victimizers. Given what's happening in Europe on a daily basis, and we're starting to ramp up here too, I'm leaning towards a lot more of the latter.
But I have an idea. If you think refugees (and "refugees") coming to America is a good idea, SIGN UP TO HOUSE THEM IN YOUR OWN HOUSE. Otherwise, how about you keep your mouth shut and quit trying to foist the cost and risk on someone else in America just so you can feel good about yourself and preen in front of your friends, neighbors and fellow church-goers (or not) about how tolerant you are. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. Let's put some virtue back into virtue-signaling.
