In the early '90s, I read Arthur Schlesinger's "The Disuniting of America,"
which had a profound effect on the way I looked at the threat of
multiculturalism.
Now I'm not a big fan of what's being done in the name of multicultralism. I think many of the efforts do more to split us apart than help us understand what we have in common. But to use the term "threat" demonstrates the adversarial nature of his viewpoint. What is multiculturalism threatening but his white-American way of life.
For more proof that he doesn't get it, he doesn't even bother to retract or clarify his statement about bombing Muslim holy sites. Instead he says:
Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed
they may have offended some. But I can't preoccupy myself with political
correctness, or who may or may not be offended by what I say. Al Qaeda certainly doesn't care if the western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages
beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or planes
crashing into buildings. Should we take any option or target off the table,
regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not - particularly if the mere
discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist
from strapping on a bomb filled backpack, or if it might encourage moderate
Muslims to start policing their own communities for extremists and jihadists.
There are many things wrong in this statement. It seems clear to me that Tancredo things that we are at war with all of the Muslim world. His words are "offensive" because they were spoken by an elected official, someone representing the people of the United States. I could care less if his words were offensive to Al Qaeda, but the were offensive to me and and a good segment of society. It'embarrassingng that Tancredo is my Congressional representative.
No comments:
Post a Comment