Gosh, those "progressives" sure caught that mean old Tom Tancredo in a trap, didn't they? A few weeks ago, the former congressman was brought to campus by the newly launched right-wing group Youth for Western Civilization to give a speech on the importance of assimilation and the value of Western culture (full disclosure: I am media director for the organization). A few hundred black-shirted juveniles holding up signs vapidly proclaiming "America is Multicultural" met him. The pinnacle of the event for those "progressives" was when Tancredo fumbled around the question of "whether the Pilgrims should have assimilated with the Native Americans."
It was the second question of the night with the implicit assumption that there was something exceptionally virtuous about Native American culture. But it's highly ironic that liberals would be so enamored with Native Americans. By all accounts, they weren't exactly "progressive" - gender roles were quite rigid and "inter-communal outreach" to other tribes wasn't very high on the agenda. Cherokees were often slave-owners, subscribing to racist notions toward blacks that were indistinguishable from those held by the British. Moreover, Native Americans frequently fought wars for land.
The last point is the crux of the argument that Tancredo should have made: the British, in seizing land via arms from the Native Americans, more or less did assimilate to the Native Americans' way of thinking. To paraphrase the esteemed Thomas Sowell: the Native Americans were probably very upset that they lost so many battles, but the idea that they had a problem with the ethos of seizing land through armed conquest is laughable. Contrary to liberal sentiment, Native American culture didn't really resemble the movie "Pocahontas."
The large-scale abandonment of the war-for-land ethos is a highly modern conception, and one that was fueled by - horror of horrors! - the West, in the post-war restructuring of international relations.
Liberal love of 1700s Native American culture is driven by nothing more than a weird fixation on a contrived, mangled version of "diversity." But the whole push for "diversity" and "multiculturalism" is really nothing more than the promotion of the concept that identity matters more than ideas. Liberal diversity consists of: white liberals, black liberals, Hispanic liberals, gay liberals, straight liberals, rich liberals, poor liberals, female liberals and male liberals. In a hilarious fit of irony, the leadership circle of Youth for Western Civilization includes a gay man, a Jewish man, a Hispanic woman and a couple of international students.
After the struggles of various oppressed groups conclude in victory, conservatives invariably come to treat them like normal members of society. Liberals still treat them as if they are living in a perpetual state of oppression - mostly because they have a stake in whether blacks, gays and Hispanics feel oppressed. If any of those communities ever got the crazy idea that individuals can succeed on their own merits or that Islamofascists aren't too keen on gay rights or women's rights, then there'd be little sense in voting for liberals.
The true agenda of the breed of "progressives" that protested Tancredo's sensible speech is ultimately nothing more than mindlessly bashing America. The United States has been a trailblazer for women's rights, gay rights and the rights of racial and religious minorities. These are classically liberal aims. Why has the modern left decided that bashing conservatives is more important than sticking up for them?
Alex Knepper is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs and a conservative columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
