A multiethnic society is a blessing; a multicultural one is doomed

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The term “multiculturalism” needs to be retired. And while we’re at it, the practice of bowing down before its altar should be put aside as well. If we don’t, we will become what we have never been — and what has never worked anywhere. And what might that be? You guessed it: a multicultural society, otherwise defined as a Balkanized society.

What the U.S. has long been and will continue to be is a multiethnic society. But if our multiethnic society eventually bleeds into a multicultural society, which apparently is the dream of progressives, we are doomed.

In a very real sense, the debate over the most accurate metaphor for America is a false one. Just what are we? Is America a melting pot? Or are we some sort of a tossed salad? Actually, and in an even more real sense, we are both at once. Or at least we have been and should continue to be. Culturally speaking, we have long been a melting pot. Ethnically speaking, we have always been a tossed salad.

At the root of any cultural unity is language. More specifically, that would be a single language. At the time of the American founding there was some debate about what that language might be. English was the odds-on favorite, but other possibilities were under consideration. German and Hebrew were among them. But there was no debate over how important it was that the people of this new country should speak the same language.

President Donald Trump has recently given his stamp of approval to the notion that English should be the official language of this country. Of course, he has taken flak for this. Recently, the Minnesota Star Tribune ran a piece ridiculing the proposal. It was clever, fun, interesting, informative and terribly wrongheaded.

The author unearthed the origins of multiple place names, some Native American, some French, some Spanish, some Latin, and some that were inventions borrowed from multiple sources. My favorite was not mentioned. That would be Itasca, which I had assumed was of Indian origin, maybe Dakota, maybe Ojibway. Not so, I learned as a young teacher; it was derived from Latin by the English-speaking Henry Schoolcraft, who “discovered” the source of the Mississippi, courtesy of more than a little help from Native peoples.

Schoolcraft took the last two syllables from the Latin word for truth, “veritas,” and the first syllable from the Latin word for head, “caput,” and created the perfectly acceptable, brand-new, American English word “Itasca,” or truthful head. Similar stories could no doubt be told about any number of states, cities, rivers and lakes. Some of them were in the piece in question. And all of them proved the reverse of the point that the author sought to make.

What do such words as Itasca, Minnesota, Iowa and Texas have in common? They are all inventions, which have all become, dare I repeat myself, perfectly acceptable English words. As such, they are all evidence of our multiethnic history, and they are all contributions to our unicultural language, not to mention our unicultural history.

To be sure, language is not the only important piece of our unicultural story. But it is a founding piece, and it should remain a permanent one. If it ceases to be either important or permanent, it will serve as a significant indication that the unraveling of America is well underway.

The notion that multiculturalism is a laudable goal for American society is itself evidence of our unraveling. After all, it suggests indifference about any single culture, even our own, maybe even especially our own. Which, come to think about it, may well be the point.

Just as we are both a melting pot and a tossed salad, so we are also both a creed and a culture. English author G.K. Chesterton called the U.S. the only country with the soul of a church. Why? Because we were founded on the basis of a creed, the Declaration of Independence. True enough. But at the same time we are more than a creed. We are also a culture.

Of course, many facets of our culture derive from our creed. But the two are not the same, even if they do reinforce one another. We were fortunate as a country to have been born with both a creed and a culture. We ought to be sensible enough to continue working toward maintaining both.

In the late 19th century, as well as for a good chunk of the past century, we were quite aware of our good fortune and quite determined to be sensible. Migrants from all parts of Europe were streaming across the Atlantic to pursue the American dream, their own dreams or some combination thereof. Not all Americans welcomed these new dreamers, but many did — and for reasons quite similar to today: new voters and/or new workers. Besides, there was a largely empty country that needed to be populated

The public school system responded by adding Americanization to their list of educational responsibilities, which already included heavy doses of Protestantization. Then two creeds were put to work to promote and advance one culture. And today? Now the twin goals are to secularize and muticulturize, if such an English word exists.

Such goals, especially the latter, stand as disappointing, even troubling, pieces of evidence that too many of us no longer have any sense of our past good fortune. More than that, the same too many apparently no longer have the good sense to think that it is sensible to maintain a single culture.

So let’s acknowledge our ethnic differences. Heck, let’s celebrate them, and let’s not in any way suppress them. Let’s enjoy the food, the music, the events and more. What could be more American than any of that?

At the same time let’s remember — and preserve — America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Heck, let’s remember — and celebrate — the Magna Carta and the founding documents of this country. My guess is that this is already being done by those Black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters who cast their ballots in 2024 in such astounding numbers for the allegedly divisive presidential candidate who challenged the divisiveness of multiculturalism then and who continues to challenge that same divisiveness now.

John C. “Chuck” Chalberg writes from Bloomington.