NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name
and/or email address published when sending VDARE
email.
A Representative Reader Reacts
to Ehrenreich; Peter Brimelow Responds
A Reasonable
Chinese Immigrant Reflects On 9/11; Peter Brimelow Responds
From: Pan Hu
Peter Brimelow writes:
This powerful
letter came from one of our regular correspondents
shortly after 9/11; it’s been on my mind ever since. I
respond, after the usual appalling delay, below. While
reading, however, note that despite his reservations, he
still endorses immigration reform!
I would like to introduce myself as a
Chinese-American currently studying at New York University.
I have been reading your website for well over a year
now, and in fact I am acquainted with your occasional
columnist,
Mr. John Derbyshire, who is your unofficial
China expert.
As an NYU student, I was quite close to Ground Zero
when the terror struck on September 11. Obviously, these
past two weeks have affected me personally to a
considerable degree. I've had to think a lot about
things I had taken for granted before 9-11, and I have
some comments to make that are pertinent to VDARE.COM's
discussion, if you would not mind.
First, I realize that this is a time when ethnic
resentments surface, and when everyone has the urge to
take out his/her anger on a definite object of hatred.
Naturally, I was also enraged by the attacks, and for
the first few days afterward my mind was filled with
thoughts of bombing some Muslim nation off the face of
the earth. But when I came back to my senses, I realized
how foolish it would be to bash Muslims as a whole for
the actions of a despicable few.
One of VDARE.COM’s principal arguments, it appears,
is that a diverse and multicultural society is
inherently fractious and easily
balkanized. If so, one implication of this argument
would be that in times of crisis (such as now), America
would be very hard-pressed to hold together as a united
country.
But from my own observation—and that of my peers—this
implication has been decisively refuted in the days
since the attack.
As a New Yorker, I am very proud to say that although
our city has suffered the most at the hands of
terrorists, we have displayed the greatest cool,
reserve, and tolerance in our reaction. As I walked
across Union Square Park with its poignant postings of
victims' photos and hundreds of memorial items, I also
saw quite a few large signs to the tune of "Arabs are
not the Enemy!",
"Peace not War!", etc. In fact, there were no signs
calling for bloody vengeance.
Right then and there, a revelation struck my mind.
After all, I was in New York City—the "multicultural
sewer" so detested by American nativists, and the very
face of the nightmare they envision as America's
brown-colored future. Even though I was so close to the
site of the massacre, I found myself in an atmosphere of
love and compassion—not hate and resentment. I couldn't
help telling myself, "If this is the future of America,
it's worth fighting and dying for."
In other words: The diverse and multicultural city of
New York—resented by those who think there is a "real"
America somewhere in White Suburbia—has since 9-11 come
to embody the best of our great country and
civilization. It's true that not as many immigrants as
you like are
flying American flags from their homes, but it's
equally true that virtually 100 percent of them can at
least empathize in the pain, which in any case cuts
across 63 nationalities.
I realize that VDARE.COM's authors and sponsors may
disagree sharply with me. Speaking practically, I will
continue to support VDARE.COM's concern for uncontrolled
immigration, and in fact I am glad that the INS will
impose stricter standards from now on. But on a
matter of principle, I can no longer step in line with
the blanket ethnic finger-pointing that some of your
opinions would endorse, however subtly.
Days like September 11 make me realize that despite
all our petty differences, U.S. residents of every race
and religion still have so much in common. This is why
New York has stood tall during this crisis. Were your
theory of American balkanization to hold true, we should
have had a huge spate of ethnic unrest in the city
already. But we haven't.
As I already mentioned, being pragmatic I cannot
oppose VDARE.COM's emphasis on at least lowering our
current immigration levels. But on another dimension,
how can America maintain its moral high ground if it
inadvertently subscribes to the same kind of
collectivist intolerance that characterizes its enemies?
I say this not because I believe that you at VDARE.COM
have this kind of collectivist intolerance, but because
your various arguments provide good ammunition for those
Americans (there are still some) that do possess it. See
the point?
Maybe it's no coincidence that these criminals had to
attack the World Trade Center. Notice that it's "World"
Trade Center. The terrorists aimed at a target, which
symbolized the ability of different races, religions,
and nationalities to get along and work with each other,
despite their myriad differences. By stepping out of
your way and strongly asserting that the character of
immigrants is as problematic as immigration itself, you
are falling into the same trap of a collectivist,
we-won't-get-along mindset.
Finally, I understand that many Americans are utterly
fed up with the notion that their country should serve
as the
"land of opportunity" for people from lesser
countries, and people who are often "lesser" themselves.
You would ask, what's the point of being Mr. Nice Guy?
As a Third-World immigrant myself, I would answer
bluntly: Being Mr. Nice Guy can really pay off when you
get in trouble. The fact that all US ethnicities and
religions are presently united in their sympathy
indicates their strong feeling that this country has
been nice to them.
Being kind to the lesser and the weak, without a
discernible element of self-interest, distinguishes
America from the countries we routinely criticize—it's
part of what makes America great.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Peter Brimelow
continues:…in
Alien Nation, I concluded with a section in which
I tried to grapple with the possibility that the lion might
lie down with the lamb, the sun might rise in the West,
and I might be WRONG in my assessment of the
consequences of current immigration, although it is
based on a lifetime’s study of politics.
Did me no good, of
course.
One reviewer
called them “a few cover-your-ass sentences.”
Pan Hu’s letter is a very eloquent statement of the
lion/ lamb possibility. And it would be churlish to deny
the remarkable solidarity that New Yorkers showed under
attack.
But I would respectfully make four points:
[1] It’s also true that
the hijackers got into the U.S., and were able to
operate so effectively, precisely because of lax
immigration controls. Indeed, the whole episode was
arguably a Middle Eastern quarrel fought out in the U.S.
because it has been imported by immigration.
[2] One of the
curiosities of 9/11 was that, despite decades of
affirmative action, the New York Fire Department turned
out still to be an Irish Catholic regiment (with a dash
of Italian), charging without flinching as their priests
gave General Absolution, a
scene very familiar in
British Army history. The solidarity of that vital unit
may very well have be derived from the fact that they
were, in a
Sailerian sense, a band of brothers.
[3] Multicultural/
multiracial solidarity in time of war is nothing new.
Britain conquered an Empire with Irish Catholic
regiments (see above) and had little trouble mobilizing
India and the Indian Army during World War II). For that
matter, Rhodesia had no trouble with its regiments of
black askaris.
This did not mean, however, that there were no
underlying political problems.
[4] The fortunate or
unfortunate fact is that people do tend to be most noble
in the presence of death. The question is: can it be
sustained?
Finally, I’m in favor
of being nice – I like to think I’m pretty nice myself –
but at whose expense?
September 10, 2002
