Five days ago, one of the posters actually read the joint statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Conferencia Episcopal de Mexico called “Stranger No Longer.” The poster had several comments. Let me quote some of them today and some to come. Frankly, that is in part because it is Sunday night and I am tired, as most pastors are by this time on Sunday. GRIN.
Read it all. Some early thoughts:
1) Zero about the responsibility of immigrants. Absolutely nothing about “respect the US culture”, “learn the language”, “don’t march down the street with Mexican flags”. Zilch. . . .
Well, I would simply say that what is generally meant by the groups who use the phrase “respect the US culture” is lose any culture that is not an “approved” culture. I might suggest that mutual respect is a much better phrase to use. Puerto Rico is part of the USA; its citizens are natural born citizens of the USA; and many Puerto Ricans have faithfully served this country in many ways. And, yet, Puerto Rico is Spanish-speaking with a strong Latino culture. Since 1898 there has been no conflict between the idea of a Latino culture of Puerto Rico and the Anglo culture of the mainland and the two, in fact, do mix rather well. I would suggest that this is a much better model than the “stamp it out” approach that will not work and has not worked in the southwest.
The other thing that tends to happen is that the phrase means that I, as an immigrant, should never challenge anything that is labeled USA culture by some, even if that is either immoral or illegal or inappropriate, etc, that I should be so grateful that the USA let me in that I should not use any of the Constitutional rights that I have to change that which is not right. Those who think that should be so lucky. I plan to use ALL my Constitutional rights. And, given that I am a veteran, I challenge anyone to say that I have not earned the right to use ALL my Constitutional rights.
Learn the language is not a problem. Remember that the majority of Latinos in the USA are USA citizens. And the rest are mostly learning it because one cannot become a citizen of this country without passing a test in English. It has been that way for many decades. But, what most people expect from learn the language is a mythological and unattainable goal. Why do I say that? Remember our own USA immigrant history. There were many “Italian” towns and “Chinatowns” and Polish areas, etc. The first generation always has problems learning a new language and will always speak with an accent. It is the second generation that knows how to speak the language well. Most of the people who complain about learning English are either deliberately ignoring that particular fact, or are upset that we speak Spanish in public, uhm, just like the Italians, the Polish, the Greeks, the Slavs, the Finns, and those good Lutherans in Minnesota did when they first arrived. GRIN. Frankly, most of the complaints about supposed refusals to learn English are deliberate distortions of the process of learning a new language. In this context, let me quote from another Roman Catholic document from Catholic Bishops of Australia. This should answer some of the concerns:
2nd Principle: Integration.
Migrants and refugees should be helped to integrate into the host society. It is essential that new arrivals are provided with, or assisted to obtain, a place where they can celebrate their faith in their own culture and language. It is also important that they are given the means to live their faith in the new cultural context of their adopted country. Mutually enriching contacts between Catholics born in and outside Australia should be encouraged.
A cross-cultural Church should be promoted: a collective awareness of the culture of others, a spirit of tolerance, a desire to respect foreign cultures, and a conviction that all people have something valuable to contribute. . .
6th Principle: Integration respects the time frame of the migrant and cannot be rushed. Integration into the host society “will occur surely and effectively if it is done voluntarily and gradually, without any compulsion or hindrance” (Pastoralis Migratorum Cura, Chapter 1).
7th Principle: Retention of language and culture, with recognition that new circumstances will cause migrant and receiving cultures to evolve. . .
x) Be aware that the arrival and settlement of new migrants and refugees may challenge a local community comprised of older, and, at times, already integrated migrant groups.
Comment:
The danger is to attempt to hurry the time needed for adjustment, without respecting the fact that the seed sown in the ground has to be allowed to grow in its own time; and different seeds spring at different times and in different seasons. We should not forget St. Paul’s exhortation: “Let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up” .
Howdy, Father!
First of all, your post ignores the mention of marching down the street with foreign flags. This sort of in-your-face gesture, which in the US often involves thousands (NOT a tiny minority) shows the kind of fundamental disrespect I’m talking about. Is it not possible to fight injustice without invoking a foreign government? A legal immigrant to a country should show some basic gratitude for the opportunity to come there, not just flip it the bird. Of course, your correct statements about your rights do not apply to the 10+ million illegals, many of whom also have participated in these marches.
Secondly, on language: it is a problem. The English test for citizenship is a very low bar, and I have met plenty of immigrant citizens who have been here for over 20 years (?legalized in 1986) and cannot produce one English sentence, or even understand English. You correctly point out that this was also true in previous waves of immigration. What distinguishes the current wave is: 1) its monochromicity, i.e. Babel before the tower. 100 years ago there were pure enclaves, but overall the picture of immigrants was a mosaic. Now, over 70% of immigrants are Spanish-speakers. 2) 100 years ago the federal government functioned in English, period. Local governments in homogeneous communities, by contrast, sometimes used other languages, although official business was overwhelmingly English (I live in such a community). Today we are required to deal with the immigrant in his language, which is one of the principal irritants to English-speakers in this country. For example, doctors have to provide interpreters to Medicaid patients at the MD’s expense, by law. And then there are the famous Spanish ballots.
Third, despite the anodyne words of the 6th principle, the assimilatory apparatus has stuck, and is in fact being thrown into reverse. The schools used to assimilate; now they offer “dual-language” programs which often delay English till 1st grade, and the Spanish textbooks are often of Mexican origin, which will do anything but produce loyal American citizens. In addition, vast areas of predominant Latino settlement and availability of Spanish have crippled natural assimilation.
Fourth, I do not know why they put forth the 7th principle, since the church ought to be neutral on that score. Meanwhile, I assert that maintenance of language and culture should be a private issue, as it was until the 1960’s. State encouragement of the maintenance of ancestral language and culture is against the interest of the state, since it tends to strengthen ties to the ancestral homeland, which, it seems, is our chief problem in the Southwest.
FYI: my parents are European immigrants.
I would tend to disagree with some of your comments, but let me post tomorrow on language, which will help expand on some of my comments. I let the flag issue go for now for several reasons, but I will cover it.
I cannot understand the negative reaction to immigrants expressing a love for their nation of origin. What is up with that? Is the United States really that WEAK? I don’t think so. I also note that this reaction is quite selective. Do we react negatively to expressions of, say, Irish pride? Heck no. American cities sponsor official St. Patrick’s Day parades. Is THAT a “private issue?” Was it in the sixties? Don’t think so.
Some say they wish to defend “American culture” from defilement. American culture? WHAT American culture? Any real American culture comes from a synthesis rising out of each successive wave of immigration, going back to the English, Scots-Irish and Africans. These latter are the sources, for example, of all music that we could call “American” such as country in all its forms, rock, R&B, blues, jazz, etc. The influx of Latino/as has already enriched the U.S. culturally and will only continue to do so as will immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe.
Heck, if it weren’t for immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Middle East, there would be no Orthodox Christianity in North America.
This type of claim that the [fill in the blanks] immigrants were going to ruin the country has been common with every major immigrant group. In every case it has been xenophobia. And, in every case those who opposed the immigrant group claimed that they were concerned about this country and that it had nothing to do with that. For instance:
“Prejudice against Irish Catholics in the US reached a peak in the mid-1850s with the Know Nothing Movement, which tried to oust Catholics from public office. The image was widespread of Irish drinking, fighting, ignoring their children, gambling, and crowding poorhouses.”
And again:
“In the 1890-1920 period—before Prohibition—Italian neighborhoods were often stereotyped as being “violent” and “controlled by the Mafia”. In 1891, eleven Italian immigrants in New Orleans were lynched due to their supposed Mafia role in murdering the police chief David Hennessy). This was the largest mass lynching in US history.”
Ah, yes, lynching, the favorite Southern good ole boy solution to a troublesome ethnic minority!
I could go on, but the history of American reaction to various waves of immigration remains just the same as before. The only difference is that, sadly, the previous immigrant group has inculturated so well that they join with everyone else in denouncing the new group. The previous groups have forgotten what their great-grandparents knew well.
Father O. – Sorry to be so verbose. Just trying to debate.
Father G. –
1) It’s not about expressing “love” for country of origin. I love St. Paddy’s Day, and I’m zero % Irish. What I’m referring to is using symbols of a foreign country to distinguish oneself from other Americans. Latinos got peeved by American flags on Cinco de Mayo. Can you imagine Irishmen getting exercised over American flags on March 17th? Those Latinos were setting up a dichotomy: the Mexican flag is ours, the American is yours.
2) American culture is indeed a synthesis of multiple influences, but it is not a “salad”, but rather a unique hybrid. There are multiple unique American art forms, including dance styles and musical genres. It does exist. It is one thing to love one’s heritage, and I do mine. It is another to claim it as one’s exclusive culture, and to reject all other American forms as foreign, while you live here.
Those who got peeved were quickly shut down by their fellow Latinos.
American culture does indeed exist, but it is no homogeneous. We are more like the Flemish and the Walloons than we are like a hybrid. There is a reason why Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America, and that is not my saying. That is a saying that I learned many years ago and it refers to African-Americans and whites. Nowadays, the “segregation” is multiple. Until we give up the melting pot idea and switch to the salad idea, we will not understand why Sunday morning is so “segregated.” Sadly, because so many do not understand the why of it, they cannot understand why ethnics would have voted so overwhelmingly for the Democrats while non-ethnics split their vote.
Until that understanding comes, we are likely to remain a divided people. And, as long as some think that the solution is to forcibly homogenize the culture, so long will ethnics tend to vote for one party.
“It is one thing to love one’s heritage, and I do mine. It is another to claim it as one’s exclusive culture, and to reject all other American forms as foreign, while you live here.”
Okay, and while this may be a bit annoying to those of certain sensibilities, it is not a hanging offense. Further, our culture, way of life, or whatever has a way of corroding these sorts of sentiments, at least over a generation or two. (And remember, when it comes to Mexicans, such feelings are legitimately fueled by historic grievances even if everyone knows that the SW United States will never be returned to Mexico. The U.S. won that round. Let the losers nurse their wounds and get what they can in reparation. They have suffered, and still suffer, greatly.) Regarding the Cinco de Mayo incident, it is clear that those who were displaying the American flag did so only to incite an incident. Again, I ask: is the United States all that weak? No, it is not. We are not.
My late husband had relatives who wrote in their journals about the “No Irish need apply” signs that were prevalent when they came over.