Part Of The Plan
My good friend Mustang of Social Sense has recently published an essay which well expresses some of my same concerns. Republished here, with Mustang's permission:
Dating back to the founding of this nation, Americans are steeped in the advantages of compromise. For example, students of American history know of Henry Clay the Great Compromiser, whose many efforts delayed the American Civil War.
PART OF THE PLAN
The global war on terror (GWOT) is not only formidable from the standpoint of placing our troops in harms way, or from the obvious drain on our economy. It is also challenging in the social sense, because there is no doubt but that we are facing a dedicated and crafty enemy. Our own people provide aid and comfort to the enemy by teaching them about political correctness, and they in turn use it as a strategy to their best advantage. Positive reinforcement comes from the fourth estate.
When people disagree on an issue, and one advocate speaks “plainly,” it has become a common practice to accuse that person of being “politically incorrect.” This suggests that the individual is “out of touch” with polite society. One successful strategy for shutting an opponent up is to infer that he or she is “non-PC” or a bigot. But the fact is that unless one is a member of a collegiate debating society, few arguments are ever really “won.” It is nearly impossible to change an opposing point of view. And the fact is that our society has lost its rhetorical ability.
The reasons for this are several. In the first place, few Americans are curious enough to read sufficiently to develop an appreciation for opposing views. In spite of my opinion that as a percentage of our overall population few Americans read at all, those who do seem to adopt an appreciation for a particular genre of reading material. I daresay that most of those who read Ann Coulter will bother to read anything written by any of her distracters. Ms. Coulter herself seems to encourage this by insisting that anyone who disagrees with her is an idiot. My question is why should an honest opinion ever be discouraged? We may not agree with that opinion, but we ought to consider opposing views before discounting them.
Those who seek to add confusion to the efforts of our government in combating terror are now using the demand for political correctness even in the face of factual or perceptive honesty. The debate begins when one group or another claims that they are “offended” by remarks, or symbols, or traditions. For example, Muslims and atheists (an interesting mix, if you ask me) claim offense by our traditional Christmas celebrations. It is no longer politically correct to celebrate a religious holiday. They insist that we call Christmas by some other name, such as “Winter Holiday.” These same people applaud loudly, however, when the United States Postal Office issues a stamp celebrating the change of Islam to a militant ideology; it was the antithesis to the “tolerance” supposedly demanded by the “PC” crowd. When people insist on maintaining the Christmas tradition however, they become “bigots” and “non-PC.”
But I believe that all of this is part of the plan. If the Islamic factions of American society can stir up a debate every time we celebrate our own western traditions, they gain an advantage through confusion and eventual apathy in our increasingly disinterested society. We can see this stratagem at work in other western societies, as well. Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury has apologized for some traditional hymns in the Anglican Church and has vowed that the next coronation will no longer be specific to the Church of England. With the wave of the hand, the Archbishop discarded more than 1,000 years of tradition to appease British Muslims. And, take for another example how offended Muslims have caused British citizens not to display the flag of St. George. Muslims claim offense by the depiction of the cross. I’m sure that the flags of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Norway, or any nation of the British Commonwealth will eventually offend Muslims living there, as well. Some time ago, a Swedish student was send home for wearing the symbol of her nation’s flag on her blouse – it was offensive to Muslim students.
What else should western culture give up in order not to offend Muslims or multiculturalists? Should we take down crosses that appear over Christian churches? Should Catholics be prohibited from wearing prayer beads where they can be seen in public? Should we plant groves of trees around Jewish Synagogues so they are unseen from main thoroughfares? I should point out in the quest for a worldwide Caliphate Muslims certainly have no problem forcing their beliefs on the rest of us; theirs is a double standard if ever there was one.
In conclusion, it does not bother me that certain aspects of western culture offend people; but I am offended that these people come to my country and then insist that our American traditions are offensive to them. It bothers me that citizens in Great Britain are allowing themselves to be intimidated away from displaying the flag of St. George. It bothers me when a student is punished for wearing the flag of her country on her blouse. It bothers me that these people are so offended, and yet remain in my country. In effect, they insist that western culture change to accommodate them, while at the same time they are unwilling to change to accommodate western traditions. One might wonder, what was the point of coming here in the first place? But of course, we really do know the answer to that question, don’t we?
But at what point does compromise itself erode, then destroy a culture? The answer to this question is playing out now, before our very eyes, particularly in Europe, which Bat Ye'or has termed "Eurabia" and, on a smaller scale, here in the United States.
Addendum: For additional reading, see "Beware: the new goths are coming." First paragraph:
"ONE of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire."