Yet Another Reason Why Multicultural Understanding Is Important

This is copied from an MSNBC article I came across.  I bet the 2010 census results will be even more interesting... 

Minority babies set to become majority in 2010
Year could be tipping point when non-white newborns outnumber white

WASHINGTON - Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In fact, demographers say this year could be the "tipping point" when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.

The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years.

Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.

"Census projections suggest America may become a minority-majority country by the middle of the century. For America's children, the future is now," said Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire who researched many of the racial trends in a paper being released Wednesday.

(continued on article's page)

America's not THAT bad - repost of comment

This is a reposting of a comment I made on Simply Blogical's post Why America is FAILING.  In this post several criticisms of the current state of the US, and indeed the entire US system of government and the Constitution, are made.  Here is one section which I find rather frustrating: 

Once it becomes governmentally acceptable to contradict the constitution, there is no basis to stopping additional unconstitutional acts from occurring – the constitution becomes futile. For example, once it is made possible to impose taxes for certain things, there is no basis for stopping more taxes from occurring. The USA’s constitutional republic has become a non-constitutional republic, and now legality is determined by governmental figures and without limitations. This will inevitably cause democracy (tyranny of the majority), corruption (alternative motives of government officials), and will result in the overall failure of a nation. Just look at America now. 

I may not personally agree with every political happening in the country right now, but I really think some people overreact and let their emotions get the best of their logic.  The following is my response to his post:

The idea that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution) has been key to the success of democracies all over the world.  The whole intent and purpose of it is to fight tyranny, so I don't see how you can so flippantly label democracy as tyranny.

As for taxation, I think it's very obviously something that is necessary for the running of the state and vital to its ability to protect the life, liberty and happiness of its citizens.  If we didn't have taxes, what roads would we drive on?  How high would school fees be if there were no tax-supported public schools?  Complete freedom is not freedom at all, but just leads to chaos.  There have to be rules put in place and some sort of organization otherwise everything collapses from natural entropy.  That's the whole reason for the existence of government.  Maybe instead of worrying so much about what freedoms you think are being taken from you, you should focus more on some positive, constructive things that you can do with that freedom.  Otherwise, what's the point of arguing for more freedom when you don't even appreciate what you already have?

Despite many problems facing America today, it is still far from a failed nation.  Have you ever been overseas to a third world country and seen the corruption of government officials, the poverty and disease that's due to war or lack of laws that promote equality amongst its denizens (not always considered citizens)?  There are many better examples of failing states out there other than America.  America may not be perfect, but it sure is a lot closer to it than the majority of the world is.  As the saying goes, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

It doesn't make sense that you complain that constitutional values are not being respected, then you turn around and attack that very constitution.  The constitution is declatory and formative in nature - the people have the "freedom" to interpret it and amend it as they see best fits the needs of their society.  Don't complain that you're not free enough, then insist that the constitution was not specific enough to define the way the nation should be - it's contradictory to want stricter enforcement of founding principles if you don't want your liberty impeded upon.  Or are you just saying that you want different liberties taken away than currently are?  The beauty of the American democratic system is that you have absolutely all the freedom to fight for that if that's really what you want.

Although they're both important documents in America's founding, be careful about mixing up the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, and be especially careful about using ideas from one document as evidence in your criticism against the OTHER document.  It just doesn't reflect well on your credibility as an intellectual if you get simple facts like that screwed up (of course we all make mistakes, but let's at least show we did our best to achieve accuracy).  Please understand that I'm not trying to attack you at all, but I encourage you to think through the full implications of your ideas a little more so you don't embarrass yourself as a public intellectual.  I too believe very firmly in the principles of life and liberty, but surely if they're so important, we ought to do our best at getting our facts straight and educating ourselves, as you suggest, so that we can truly make this country and this world a much better place than it is.

This quote by Edmund Burke seems very relevant to this topic: "But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint."  All of us could use a little more wisdom when discussing a matters of such magnitude as liberty and freedom.

A Softer but Stronger Touch: Female Marines in Afghanistan

An article in the NY Times mentions a new military strategy to be used in the war in Afghanistan where units of female marines will accompany male squads on patrol as a way of building trust with Afghan women.  These marines will meet with Afghan women in their homes to gather intelligence and learn what the local needs for aid are in order to more properly meet them.  This is a welcome strategy, being more holistic and culturally-sensitive, attempting to reach to all parts of Afghan society instead of focusing solely on the male-dominated traditional leaders.  The article mentions that:

...when one of the teams visited a village in southern Afghanistan, a gray-bearded man opened his home to the women by saying, “Your men come to fight, but we know the women are here to help.”

This brings up issues about traditionally-perceived male aggression, and I am led to ask: why are men typically seen as being untrustworthy and hard-to-crack in matters of communication?  Although men and women communicate and relate to one another in different ways, there should be a time when men can be honest with one another, putting egos aside and engaging in meaningful conversation to reach a common goal.  There are of course times when a soft approach is not feasible and even more dangerous than the aggressive one, but both hard and soft strategies need to be considered in equal light by decision-makers.  In a realist-centered world where force is perceived as legitimate when protecting national interests, the use of force is often seen as the only effective way to protect national interests, usually leading to unnecessary war and death.  These means may lead to nominal peace eventually, but they do little to build long-term relationships and understanding between nations and people groups which could lead to long term peace that does not need to be ensured by force.

Situations like the North Korean nuclear crisis are prime examples where saber-rattling has led to greater harm and has been counterproductive in the pursuit of national security.  Past experience has shown that North Korea has been responsive to diplomatic efforts at negotiation so long as there was communication on an equal level and no isolating proclamations of North Korea belonging to an 'Axis of Evil' as Bush so passionately declared.  (For more on this subject see Roland Bleiker's article in International Affairs, "A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue: US Foreign Policy and the Korean Nuclear Crisis.")

Back to Afghanistan, it's refreshing to see these deeper efforts being made by the military to connect with local people, learning their personal concerns, and promoting a cooperative, mutually-beneficial relationship of understanding between them without having to resort to physical threats.  On a side note, it'd even be nice to see something like this happening locally in the US, where decision makers spend more time with common people to see first hand what they need the government to do for them, rather than keeping to exclusive circles out of reach of constituents.

All of these issues speak to the importance of including every part of society and giving voices to those who are often marginalized, as women often are in conflict situations.  Even if this strategy is just a means to the end of gathering intelligence, it can still foster valuable mutual understanding between both groups.