11/15/18

A Compassionate Argument for a Strict Border Part 1: Assimilation

By: David Harris

A heartwrenching scene: a young child stands with his hands wrapped around the bars of a small and constrictive cage. He sobs because he has been separated from his mother and father, they being placed in another detention camp, possibly hundreds of miles away. It is indeed a shocking sight – except it’s not real. It was taken at a leftist political demonstration to protest Trump’s border policy – it doesn’t reflect reality in the way that the tweeters wish it to. Again, a series of photos surface showing children being kept in larger chain link “cages” of sorts – the outrage is immediate and loud. The Trump Administration must answer for these crimes! Except the photos were taken in 2014 – during the Obama Administration, and demonstrate policy in place from that administration to this point – the outrage shifts, but does not silence or even lower in volume. Why? Because the President is racist, xenophobic, etc., and the laws he and some of the more hardline supporters of a secure border are the outflow of this racism and xenophobia. At least that’s what an alien in a distant universe might think if they only are able to intercept intergalactic radio waves carrying virtually any major news source.

We should be smart about how and when we are outraged by something. This was true during the Obama years and every previous government administrations from the beginning of time, and it’s still true today. That being said, it’s incredibly sad to see so many people being “straight up duped” by what they read and hear through the media into counterfeit outrage that acts like a drug in their system, convincing them even more that they’re right and everyone who disagrees with them is not only deathly wrong but also evil. It’s even sadder when there are throngs of among the outraged masses thinking that their outrage is somehow justified by a moral, biblical perspective because in their minds they are “supporting justice,” “standing up for the downtrodden,” or “welcoming the sojourner.” If you are one of these outraged, this piece is for you. While I don’t want you to be unnecessarily offended, if you are, then it is necessary – my hope is to bring true, actual compassion and charity to an issue that many are using as an excuse to metaphorically beat other Americans over the head for “not being compassionate.” My thesis is straightforward: a stricter border policy for the United States is far more compassionate than a loose and lax one. I will make this argument through several lines of reasoning, but I should fully disclose that I am coming from a biblical perspective, one that values above all things treating others “how they would want to be treated.” If my reasoning seems cold at times it is only because I am following logical conclusions to get to what is most important: the truth of how to best serve, love and protect our fellow man because they are made in the image and likeness of God.

So let’s get specific: it is very much in vogue among certain circles of the “values voters” and the evangelical community to stand in opposition to stricter border policy with the reasoning that these policies (secure border, selective immigration, etc.) are innately racist and/or do not reflect the biblical principle of “welcoming the sojourner.” While the interest in caring for those of other lands in less than desirable economic/political/cultural conditions is admirable, there is no moral high ground to be had by opposing secure border policy. In fact, if one peels back the emotional layers, opposing a secure border and stricter immigration policy is downright cruel. Why? There are many reasons. I want to deal with two, both dealing with the idea of incentive in these two categories: 1) incentive for immigrants to come to the US, and 2) incentive for US citizens to care for those of other nations.

Before directly discussing incentive, I want to examine the question of why migrants come to the US in general (legally and illegally). Why do people leave their place of birth, life and root to come to a new place? Population movements throughout history have occurred for any number of reasons (many times being forced), but the overwhelming incentive for those coming to US as of now must be chiefly economic opportunity – with a far smaller percentage for reasons related to freedom of speech, expression and association. What does this mean? From an economic standpoint this is fairly straightforward: unemployment almost demands immigration – this is what happens when an economy thrives. In fact, with the lack of skilled laborers in the US at this time, labor pools from other nations will have to be tapped into, as other nations do throughout the world (If you want proof of this, look on a website for a country that is actively searching for immigrants like New Zealand – there are incentives and jobs to be had, but only to those with specific skills). While there is fear that migrants could “steal” jobs from Americans, the fear subsides with low unemployment, a resulting factor of lower taxes and regulation. By this train of economic reasoning (which, I might add is also founded on the biblical principles of private property and the command “thou shall not steal”), the economic policies of redistribution, high taxes and high regulation actually lead directly to ant-immigration sentiment as they become the target of anger by unemployed natives.

However, there is a problem of a somewhat different variety that arises from immigrants coming for economic reasons – there is not the same drive for cultural assimilation. An immigrant who leaves one country for another because they’re fleeing an oppressive regime or culture typically embraces the place they’re fleeing too – after all, the difference in the administration of law is the point of their move to begin with. When one moves only for economic reasons, the drive for assimilation is much less, leading to lethargy toward adopting the culture, language and worst of all, civics of that place. This is not at all to say that all those who come to the US for economic opportunity don’t contribute positively in to the nation, only to say that the trend of merely chasing dollars and cents does not lend itself well to cultural assimilation. Now, a decent argument could be made that many immigrating to the US are actually bringing superior culture in some instances – I’d be willing to accept that premise on a case by case basis, but it doesn’t negate the consequences of a massively unassimilated migrant community. The obvious question/objection is this: why is assimilation important or even good? The answer is simple: the US is particular nation with a particular system of law and government. This system has yielded, in general, a peaceful nation. The working of our system requires a populace that subscribes and understands the laws that make it work. The laws are based on a common culture that has traditionally valued them. The culture is based in a common language, history and values system. Assimilation is necessary not only for the thriving of the nation, but also the thriving of those entering to it.

While there are a host of negative consequences that arise from a lack of assimilation, one receiving little attention from the conservative side of the immigration debate is the Democrat monopoly on immigrant voters. Why this trend? Well, for starters, when someone comes to the United States their primary interactions are with government run institutions – immigration bureau offices, the school system, community volunteer organizations, etc. – the bulk of these being run by urban, Democrat volunteers, or more often than not, paid government employees. How do I know? Because I have worked in some of these bureaucracies for years. The monopoly is held tight through an aggressive program built upon a firm subscription to the idea of multiculturalism that leads to a lack of assimilation (because if all cultures are equally valid and good, there’s no reason anyone should change or adjust their own regardless of where they come from).

It often works like this: (and I have asked many immigrants from Hispanic countries concerning these trends) an immigrant arrives in the US. He is shown the ropes of his new nation by both a plurality of government bureaucracies and by members of his own culture already there. As he is guided in the citizenship process, he is taught American History primarily by democrats, encouraged to vote by democrats and then his community tells him to “be Hispanic” in the US is to vote Democrat. Why would anyone be surprised that he votes Democrat with nearly every voice telling him to do so? To add insult to injury, the left-leaning folks who helped him are directly at odds with the community he’s a part of on even more crucial issues – they just don’t bother to tell him. For example, polls have shown that Hispanic voters are typically pro-life and pro-traditional marriage – issues that should be at the forefront of their voting decisions, but are so often ignored in favor of economic issues like “affordable housing” (which is essentially code for redistributionism, a policy that negatively affects any immigrants wishing to grow businesses and increase personal wealth in the US). Perhaps if the new arrival had been forced to assimilate more, he wouldn’t be voting for a party that openly supports things he detests from a moral standpoint.

Above all, it should be noted that assimilation is good for the person being assimilated, at least in the United States, thought this is not only true here. If YOU ever move to a foreign country, you should do your best to assimilate in the areas that are important – this does not mean that you change your worldview, but you adopt the language, traditions and civics that do not conflict with your conscience – after all, if you weren’t willing to, why did you move there to begin with?

In part 2 we will begin to look more specifically at the idea of incentive and how it determines who and why come across the border.

11/12/18

Why?: Explaining the Holocaust - A book review

By: Jonathan Harris

The very idea of the word “Holocaust” conjures up feelings of the most despicable kind of evil imaginable. It is normal for those who have detailed knowledge of the horrific mistreatment of Jews in Nazi Germany to wonder what could have motivated such barbarous actions in a civilized country. This is the very question history professor Peter Hayes seeks to answer in Why? Explaining the Holocaust. While Hayes admits his task is not an easy undertaking, he comes as close as perhaps one can to arriving at an explanation. Hayes introduces his study by stating: “Each chapter of this book examines . . . eight central issues . . . and the book as a whole reflects my conviction that the Holocaust is no less historically explicable than any other human experience . . .” (59). Broadly speaking, the issues Hayes deals with can be categorized into “acts of commission, some concern acts of omission, and still others entail[ing] both” (59).

The story of anti-Semitism in Europe starts long before the existence of national socialism.  Hayes observes that “Although some ancient Egyptian and Greek texts express animosity toward Jews, the rise of intense hostility to and fear of them largely coincides with the rise of Christianity” (133). Guilds across Europe kept Jews from competing economically in most vocations. However, the rise of capitalism afforded an opportunity for Jews to have success in financial vocations such as money lending. An oft-repeated cliche throughout the book is that “the appeal of antisemitism rises and falls in inverse relationship with the stock market” (478). The perception that Jews, because of their over representation in banking, were responsible for the financial down turns that affected the rest of the population formed the wedge that would tarry long into post-Christian secularism.

Of course the moral objection to the Jewish people still had a profound affect. The author states that “By the time of the Reformation . . . hatred of Jews . . . had crystallized around two central generalizations: (1) that Jews were parasitic profiteers, intent on extracting wealth from Christians, and (2) that Jews were incorrigible instruments of Satan, intent on serving his purposes and afflicting the pious” (207). The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a widely circulated publication originating in early 20th century Russia, asserted a Jewish conspiracy for international control. This theory was widely echoed as one Catholic journal from 1938 “wrote of the Jews’ ‘messianic craving for world domination’” (3994). It was this attitude that could have given rise to the Holocaust in many European countries as the lack of resistance and degree of assistance in the Holocaust among other nations shows.

The reason the Holocaust happened within a German context, according to Haynes, has much to do with events immediately preceding the rise of Hitler. “ . . . the prominence of Jews in the arts became an excuse to blame them for the alleged ‘corruption’ of German culture during the Roaring Twenties. . . the leading proponent of sex education and research and of gay rights . . . was a Jew, as was the owner of Germany’s preeminent manufacturer of condoms . . .” (1012). In addition, Germany’s devastating economic collapse in the late 20s and early 30s was blamed on Jewish corporate interests. Association with Bolshevism gave the impression that Jews did not care about the country in which they resided. The three-class voting system and “Jew count” from World War I still lingered in the minds of Germans who believed that Jews were over represented in political decision making had shirked their military duty. Catalyzing justification for this resentment was the fact that evolutionary “science” could now be used to justify racial hatred. “Hitler tricked his message out with a synthesis of pseudoreligion and pseudoscience that may be aptly dubbed a ‘theozoology’: On the one hand, he posed as an evangelist of the Volk, the person who would lead a national revival by making the German people sense its own power and, as the Nazi slogan ‘Deutschland Erwache’ said, ‘Awaken Germany’” (928). It was in awakening the German people to alleged Jewish privilege and fanning the flames of resentment because of it that Hitler gained the support necessary to eventually carry out the Holocaust.

In addition to answering the major questions, Hayes also draws lessons about the Holocaust. He identifies potential opportunities that exist within the United States for stoking the flames of hatred, namely toward homosexuals and Hispanics. This may be Hayes weakest section since he fails to make necessary distinctions between the motivations for the resentment of Jews within Germany and the motivations for wanting to secure the southern border within the United States. He also fails to interact with movements aimed at the rich, such as Occupy Wall Street, or the popular concepts of social justice and white privilege. Still, Hayes does offer up a wonderfully thorough explanation for why the Holocaust took place, and why there was little resistance to it.

11/6/18

The Farce of Finding Faith in Facts

Historiography Meets Presuppositionalism
By: Jonathan Harris

"This pill is guaranteed to cure what's ailing you!" or so the sales pitch goes from the half-baked sweat drenched racketeer of quackery and pioneer of snake oil preaching at the county fair. What's to make a young clean shaved fresh out of college urban sophisticate part with a few Thomas Jeffersons on the flimsy notion that he may, after all, get sick one day? Every marketer worth their salt knows the answer: "Don't take my word for it!” and in streams the testimonials and scientific studies all delivered by a lab coat housing the body of a healthy specimen of an alleged medical expert.

To the more skeptical among us this scenario raises eyebrows. How should we know that the smiling doctor on television is really telling the truth? How can we verify that the testimonies before us are not the performances of paid actors? Where can we go to find the cold hard truth straight from the mouth of the proverbial horse? Fears are somewhat dispensed when a trusted source, such as a close friend or a family doctor, tells us that the product worked for them. Subjective experience, therefore, does hold a place in the quest for verification. Anxieties may also decrease when it's confirmed that a prominent university is willing to stake its reputation on the product on the basis of clinical studies. Objective scientific processes, it can thus be surmised, also hold a place in verification. Still, there are some who may find their faith in a product boosted when the mechanism behind the product's success is logically explained to them.

In each of the cases above faith is being displayed in some form. Trusting a snake-oil salesman may be more akin to a blind leap, but it is just as much a faith commitment as purchasing a product on the basis of consensus, expert authority, or sensory perception. The latter are perhaps more reasonable, but they are not less faith driven. It is easier to trust our eyes than it is a complete stranger mainly because we have previous experience with our eyes that we do not have with a stranger. Of course, even this assumes the principle of induction which in and of itself must be justified epistemologically.

Now, for the sake of argument, pretend we are trying to verify the effectiveness of a medication existing one hundred years ago with a recipe that has since been lost in a natural disaster. There are no living witnesses. There are no experts. There is no scientific data. All that exists are written testimonials. Perhaps without the missing additional verifiers it would be tempting to eliminate the whole concept of the medication all together. Why not sink into complete skepticism about the product? Maybe the testimonies are mere forgeries? Whose to say?

Consider that this is the way in which the vast majority of historical facts come to us. Perhaps there are artifacts and corroborating evidence, but why should one hundred pieces of evidence be any more reliable than one? With no one alive capable of stretching their memory back into the past far enough perhaps the whole discipline of history is a fruitless effort?

Facts, as it turns out, are not self interpreting. They are particulars in search of universals. They must be assumed to exist first, and then they must be categorized. For example, if one were to find a saber from an area in which pirates were known to traverse three hundred years ago, and if such a saber matched other known sabers from pirate vessels, it may be a safe assumption that the saber is in fact a pirate saber. Because this reality cannot be totally verified should not bother anyone. What is verified is the methodology used to ascribe the category of "pirate saber" to the piece of medal found on the beach.

The next logical question is, "Upon what basis can this methodology be justified?" Carl Trueman believes that it is upon social convention:

"My conclusion is that, while there is no such thing as neutrality in the telling of history, there is such a thing as objectivity, and that varied interpretations of historical evidence are yet susceptible to generally agreed upon procedures of verification that allow us to challenge each others’ readings of the evidence.” (Trueman, Histories and Fallacies, 21)

Whether it be the nature of an ancient artifact, or a much more complicated proposition such as "King George III violated the English constitution," objectivity, according to Trueman, resides in "generally agreed upon procedures." Trueman goes on in Histories and Fallacies to further define what he means by "procedures," but he never defends his assumption that such procedures are granted validity by being "generally agreed upon." It's more than a little interesting that in a wonderful work that even includes a chapter on logical fallacies, the whole basis for trusting any of the methodology being discussed is likewise an "ad populum" fallacy.

My suggestion is that one can appreciate, in general, the tools that traditional historians use to refute revisionists without hinging their entire toolbox on a cliff of expert testimony, majority vote, or prejudicial conjecture which will only serve to place any system of interpretation two steps behind a complete collapse into postmodernism itself. An easy case and point would be the majority of experts in Soviet Russia who reduced the entire history of religion to a manifestation of ignorance and superstition. Their fatal flaw was assuming dialectic materialism. Philosophy undergirds historiography. Fortunately, despite their materialism, Soviet historians were not wrong in every area just because they were wrong in one. They would have, with equal vigor and rigor, argued against holocaust deniers just as any American historians today would. But, the important point is this: Their "rightness" or "wrongness" was not determined by their agreement. Something other than their consensus made them right about some things, and the denial of this "something" made them wrong about other things.

When determining if a salesman is being honest, potential customers are justified in employing methods of verification, but not because they are autonomous self-justifying creatures. Rather, it is because they themselves are "justified." Here's an analogy. Suppose a microscope is being used. In order to utilize it properly the device must be calibrated, otherwise it will not focus on the petri dish. A microscope cannot focus itself. Nor can a convention of microscopes assemble and focus themselves together. They rely on outside authentication. A human must calibrate them according to a pre-assigned criteria. Even if were the case that every microscope in the world were unfocused, it would not follow that the new standard for microscopes is that they ought to be unfocused. A criteria from the maker of the microscope still exists. It could be that the contents in a petri dish are not identifiable, but this does not invoke relativism. Objectivity makes its way to the microscope from the top down, not the bottom up. It is outside the system, not within it. It is in the calibration that truth is brought into focus, not through a “brute” self interpreting fact.

It is the same with both testing medication or engaging in historical research. Human beings are finite but calibrated by their maker to ascertain truth. They rely on a divine entity that must by nature be immaterial, absolute, and unchanging in order to justify induction, the immaterial laws of logic, and sensory perception. Some kind of unified plurality must be presupposed and grounded in order to solve the problem of unity in diversity thus creating the categories necessary for relating objects to one another. In addition, there must be an ethical code of some kind that ensures lying about facts is impermissible. Of course now I will be accused of religious language. But, to be sure, it will be by some modern prophet whose mouth inescapably drips the same kind of language.

The reason some customers are duped by snake oil salesman is the same reason historians are duped into pseudo-history. They have adopted a paradigm that does not adequately account for all the facts available. They declare "clear" what in reality is "fuzzy." Sometimes evidence is ignored or misread due to improper calibration. An example would be the materialists previously described. Their whole foundation for critical analysis, perhaps unrealized by them, is based upon immaterial absolutes. Yet, they undercut their own foundational belief by also holding to materialism simultaneously. Throwing out all facts that would suggest immaterial realities leads to paradigms that do not make sense of all the evidence. Human nature is reduced to biological categories. Thus, historical realities are interpreted according to material needs. Another reason historical error takes place is that not enough facts exist to create a paradigm capable of fitting the facts that do exist. The methodology may be superb, but the lack of evidence must lead to an educated guess. Archaeologists are constantly coming up with theories about incomplete evidence. Sometimes their theories are later proven to be wrong based on new evidence.

It is important in this historical endeavor to maintain an attitude of humble absolutism. Humans are finite creatures utilizing infinite principles. Historians deal in evidence, not brute facts. Just as a diamond has many facets, so do historical realities. Events in particular can be seen from many different angles. Reconstructing something as sophisticated as a crime scene requires a willingness to be corrected. However, this willingness is never to be confused with postmodernism, relativism, or revisionism, all of which do away with universals and any kind of binding methodology.

In closing, let me name some names. There is a curious strain of supposed objectivity among the priests of modern academia when it comes to the cause of the War Between the States. Gary W. Gallagher maintains that “If Southerners did not fight to preserve slavery, neither did they wage a rebellion against the United States.” (Gallagher, The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, 207). Well, I suppose the second claim is as equally disputable as the first. Edward H. Bonekemper III says that “[The war] had everything to do with it (i.e. slavery)” (Bonekemper, The Myth of the Lost Cause, xi). In both cases, it is claimed that the “truth” squarely contradicts the “Lost Cause Myth.” Gallagher writes, “I am more concerned with its historicity. Thus I will catalogue the assertions of the Lost Cause and compare them to the history of the Civil War experience. The goal is to correct the national memory by refuting the Lost Cause legend and reestablishing the war as history” (Gallagher, 14).

All this may sound well and good to the casual reader, but what is actually being lost in these studies is any semblance of actual objectivity. The reason for this is that methodology has been sacrificed by ideology. If it assumed at the outset that Southerners were as a group involved in historical amnesia about the reasons they engaged in war, of course the conclusion will also assert that Southerners were liars. It is as if the scientific process is commenced with a smudge on the screen of the microscope.

In a failure to recognize their own biases, both Gallagher and Bonekemper conveniently leave out or offer absurd explanations for facts that do not seem to fit their paradigm. Gallagher asserts that Gettysburg could not have been the turning point of the war since there were two years of fighting after the battle. What are historians then to make of the battle of Midway during the second world war? Hampton’s support of black suffrage after the war as a self-realized ploy to paint the war in a more noble light while efforts to suppress black suffrage are equally features of the Lost Cause. Jubal Early is credited with creating the myth of Lee to the exclusion of Grant at a time when Northerners had an insurmountable advantage in book purchasing power. The more one reads, the more conspiratorial things become. Similarly, Bonekemper commits the error of reification by attributing personal attributes to the Lost Cause such as its ability to convince Douglas Southall Freeman to paint Lee in a favorable light in his famous biography of the general. The burning of Columbia by Sherman’s army is attributed to Wade Hampton despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that is never discussed. The Confederate Constitution is thoroughly cherry picked, but never actually understood in any intelligent fashion.

The reason for this is clear. To purveyors of politics history is a weapon. The pursuit of understanding takes a back seat to the impulse of destroying ones political foes. There is no real objectivity because the tools of the historian are not the primary tools being utilized. They are only called upon on the off chance that they can be harnessed to seemingly validate a political point. This is why Gallagher and Bonekemper’s historical paradigm falls apart. They allow their faulty metaphysical and ethical assumptions to influence their epistemological method.

Why talk about any of this? Just like the actor playing a doctor in a television commercial is able to sell snake oil, so too is the political priest playing the historian. Most are aware of the first kind of charlatan but fooled by the second. Unfortunately, listening to him will cause more than just a belly ache. Like a house built upon a poor foundation is a historical paradigm built upon faulty assumptions. Always examine the presuppositions of any alleged expert. It may be that they handle their tools with skill and precision, but if they start their process upon a faulty basis or an ill conceived philosophy, the whole house will come crashing down. Both act as if they are neutral because of their unbiased and objective "expert" status. They alone are capable of separating myth from fact. They want us to put our faith in the facts, when in reality it is not "the facts" we are putting our faith in at all, but rather their own philosophical musings.

Davy Crockett is said to have made the statement, "Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead." Historians would do well to be sure that their historiography is in order and only then go ahead with using the tools of a historian. Don't be fooled. Finding faith in facts is just a farce.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...