Steaming Cauldron? ... Definitely! - by Hénock Gugsa

Steaming Cauldron? – Definitely!

by

Hénock Gugsa

#### /// ####

Amazingly, for the last three centuries, America’s “melting pot” concept has been not just an idea, but an uncontested reality.  The social experiment of unity from diversity has been successful to a large extent. Even now, faced with the extreme and radical differences of culture, religion, and historical background, the effort to assimilate has not abated one bit. However, some fine adjustments have had to be made (by the Government) to ensure and enforce the security, harmony, and successful advancement of national goals. In the process, at present, the melting pot has begun to look more and more like a steaming cauldron that is ready to get out of control because of too much strain and stress (pressure cooker?). Is America’s vision and purpose in danger?

In 1782, J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur asked in his “Letters from an American Farmer” ...

"…whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes... What, then, is the American, this new man? He is neither a European nor the descendant of a European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared."

The groups de Crevecoeur was speaking of were readily assimilable because the basic ingredients for easy “melting” were already in place. People of European stock, meaning Christian Caucasians with more or less similar cultural values, were coming to America ... fleeing persecutions, famine, and other hardships in their native lands. These folks were cognizant that they were in a new land, and the price for their new-found freedom was the abandonment of old allegiances. America was the land of a fresh new start on life. A new citizen only had to voluntarily reprogram himself to adopt new ways while at the same time contributing positively to the whole community. Thus, the idea of America and the concept of the “new man”, this “American,” became subconsciously real and concrete.

The nineteenth century focused the nation’s attention on the cancerous evil of slavery. A major price was paid in the form of a civil war that left over a half million citizens killed, and a great President assassinated. The net eventual effect of all that turmoil was to add the black race to the American citizenry. At the same time, other minority groups were already in the mix, namely Asians and Mexicans. In all this, of-course, we should not forget the original Americans – the native people who were here before everybody. Their story has been told and hopefully will continue to remain in our consciousness.

Move forward to present-day America. There is a sense of dichotomy to the problems we are facing as a nation today ....

First - Who are the new immigrants? Who are the new “Americans”? Interestingly, America is actually beginning to look like the real united nations living under one single umbrella. However, this time, the new immigrants are totally different from the old immigrants of yore. The newcomers have brought along more social baggage with them and they don’t seem to be ready or willing to assimilate voluntarily. They are not showing an understanding or real appreciation of their new home, and the concept of Americanism does not seem to sink in.

For example, consider the Somali immigrants. There are some serious issues of incompatibility in the areas of separation of religion and politics as well as economics. We are not observing just another transient subculture here ...  actually, proofs of evidence to the contrary can be provided, and they are unpleasant. Somali men, for instance,  continue to have multiple wives despite anti-bigamy laws of the land. The Somalis seem to be able to skirt the law by claiming that the second and third wives are sisters and not really wives. As an economic sector, Somalis are not too receptive to the American (or any other western world) system of banking. Their religion forbids credit transactions or interest as income. A system called Dwolla is preferred instead. Another problem with the Somali immigrants is their constant demand for extra-special social services of all kinds (e.g.- prayer rooms in the work place and at school) at the expense of the general community. There are even reports that some of these folks have two or three declared residences (multi-state) for the purpose of exploiting a variety of social services. In all, Somalis' persistent resistance to assimilation has simply been more kindling to the never-dying fires of xenophobia. Moreover, in addition to their local extra legal activities, some Somalis’ connection to international terrorism makes matters worse.

Another example  - Some Hispanic groups who somehow feel that their culture is superior to everybody else’s. Hence any appeal to assimilation is summarily viewed as an encroachment at best, and sinister racism at worst.

Second -  Politicians, the media, and other social outlets have not been helping matters at all.

A recent Presidential candidate, for example, openly and unashamedly suggested that our “illegal immigration” problems could be resolved by the “self-deportation” of the immigrants. He forgot to mention that he belongs to a group that once used to be persecuted for their religion, beliefs, and practices. 

On the other hand, we have media talking-heads bewailing the disappearance of the America they knew. “Good-bye to 'Leave It to Beaver', mom's apple pie, …,” blah, blah, blah … they say. Well, Beaver (Jerry Mathers) is probably a grandpa now! John Wayne, Donna Reed, and Ike are long gone! Welcome to the information age where new technology has brought in “texting”, twittering, facebooking, etc. The world has been figuratively shrinking at an alarming rate for decades now, but all the xenophobes and neo-nativists can think to do is stir up problems by scapegoating new groups. It really is a failing proposition … too bad some people don’t realize it.

So to wrap it all up, we ask again but in a slightly different fashion: Is America in a tight spot as regards its social fabric? How do we deal or cope with our quandary?

There is really only one approach: We have to remain, as ever, optimistic and resilient! These two traits are actually the tools that have kept the nation not only growing but prospering since its birth. The optimism that is enshrined in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States will inspire us to find new solutions. At the same time, the resiliency of existing institutions will emerge once again. Citizens new and old will learn from the past and adapt to meet the new challenges of a dynamic country. We will continue to hope, to dream, and to endeavor to persevere!

Lying 'Lie Detectors' - by William Safire

Lying 'Lie Detectors'

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

New York Times,

Published: October 10, 2002

WASHINGTON

Longtime readers of this column have noticed some recurring themes: I'm for personal privacy and have an affinity for the often-betrayed Kurdish people. I despise state-sponsored gambling as well as the form of torture that calls itself the "lie detector."

Win some, lose some. Losses: Lawmakers are playing the slots, and privacy has been taking a beating from both government and private snoops. But some wins: The Kurds we protect in northern Iraq are united and ready to join in a fight for freedom. And this week, the polygraph — that hit-and-miss machine measuring sweat, speedy heartbeat and other signs of nervousness — has been discredited as the judge of truth-telling.

After 19 months of study, experts convened by the National Research Council, an arm of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, concluded that "national security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument," and noted pointedly that "no spy has ever been caught [by] using the polygraph."

Up to now, the main objection to the determination of human believability by machine has come from civil libertarians. In criminal investigations, hot lights and rubber truncheons have been replaced by a modern "third degree." A U.S. attorney general once told me: "Look — we know it's often wrong, but watching that needle jump is scary, and it's our best way for police to get confessions."

The Supreme Court in 1998 held, 8 to 1, that only a jury can be the lie detector: "By its very nature, polygraph evidence may diminish the jury's role in making credibility determinations. . . . the aura of infallibility attending polygraph evidence can lead jurors to abandon their duty to assess credibility and guilt."

Thus defeated by the high court in criminal trials, and with businesses restrained by Congress from using the intimidating device to screen employees, the "polygraph community," as the sweat-merchant lobby calls itself, made its last stand by claiming the ability of its testers to root out spies.

The C.I.A. had been the first to fall for it. By relying on widespread polygraph tests to "flutter" its employees, the agency believed it was invulnerable to "moles." But the Soviet penetrator Aldrich Ames breezed through two of those tests, causing our counterspies to lower their guard and ignore obvious clues to the source of espionage that cost the lives of 10 U.S. agents in Russia.

Because professional spies are trained to defeat the device; because pathological liars do not cause its needles to spike; and because our counterspies relax when a potential suspect "passes" — the system breeds the opposite of security.

Here's how I learned about that. In 1981 there was a brouhaha about the Reagan campaign having pilfered a briefing book used by Jimmy Carter to prepare for a debate. James Baker, to deflect suspicion from himself, hinted that it must have been the doing of the campaign chairman, Bill Casey.

Casey, just appointed C.I.A. chief, told me he was going to challenge Baker to a polygraph test to show who was lying. Figuring my old pal Casey was the culprit, I wondered why he would take the gamble. He reminded me he was an old O.S.S. spymaster, and that by using dodges like a sphincter-muscle trick and a Valium pill, he could defeat any polygraph operator. Baker wisely did not take Casey up on the challenge.

A more serious example of the foolishness of dependence on the machine: A national security adviser was suspected of leaking a secret to The New York Times. Though not our source, he flunked the exam, and was about to be fired and disgraced. He put President Reagan on the phone to The Times's publisher, who — on a one-time basis — confirmed that the adviser had not been our source. That was one fewer career lost to the predatory polygraph.

To such anecdotal evidence we now add thorough scientific refutation of the technique. As a result, polygraphing should be stopped not only at the Energy Department, which sponsored the Research Council study because it was losing scientists, but at the Defense Department, which subjects some 10,000 employees to the self-defeating display of distrust.

If unfairness to truth-tellers doesn't move you, try the hard-liner's reason: Bureaucratic reliance on today's fault-ridden system lets well-trained spies and terrorists penetrate our defenses.