Andrew D. Anderson » Blog » Commentary

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

-Theodore Roosevelt 1907

It is unfortunate, I think, that this quote from Theodore Roosevelt is being forwarded without any kind of discussion or close interpretation. It does not simply stand in support of immigration reform (and I only guess that was what the forwarders’ intended) – if interpreted as appropriate for modern times, as I doubt it should be, it has much stronger implications for all modern American people.

How would you identify someone that was “in every facet” an American by Roosevelt’s definition – one with no divided allegiance and complete loyalty to the American people? Would they buy only American products, speak and think only in English (do you get to pick the language you think in?), invest only in American companies, burn their family heirlooms wherever another flag was present, disassociate themselves with their family history – for, seemingly, these are Roosevelt’s prescriptions.

And if that is what it took… then how many Americans would Roosevelt commend – certainly not the foreign-product-buying kind, employees of or investors in Toyota, Sony, et al., or even customers of American companies that outsourced jobs to reduce costs for the America consumption-addiction. All of these actions, and others, ingrained in modern American life, are certainly highly suspect for anyone claiming to be a Roosevelt-approved American loyalist.

Of course, we must ask ourselves, how many of these (apparently loyalty-subverting) activities were even possibilities over 100 years ago when Roosevelt spoke these words? The answer, certainly, is “very few of them”. The world has changed and America has changed with it. Looking to hundred-year-old quotes for normative advice can only go so far.

If you found these words to be compelling instructions, I am afraid it was only because you did not realize that they do more work against all supposed “actual Americans” than they do in support of tougher immigration laws. If you, in fact, did realize that broader implication, then I am sure you see we have much bigger issues in modern America than how to think about immigration.

I, personally, think that the quote is only worth interpreting within its own time – which leaves it normatively neutered and of simply historical value.

–
Andrew D. Anderson

http://www.AndrewDAnderson.com

Every year that I’ve been at the UofC we get these lame letters asking us to relate our life and experience at the University to donors or prospective students. I don’t ever participate, as I’m sure that my statements would be heavily censored. Institutionalized education is a big racket; that’s true everywhere – its just more miserable here. If life is misery, then they do well to prepare you at the UofC. If you think you may want something else, go somewhere else.

Rant aside, if you’d like to see the real misery, boredom, hopelessness, and outlets that the University of Chicago provides its students… I advise you to look here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/quinnanya/collections/72157622661408694/

It’s a great set of real graffiti from the university. By the looks of it – completely uncensored. It’s probably not very reassuring, but it’s closer to truth than the propaganda the admissions department puts out.

Hey, but look on the bright side… you’ll be a well paid worker-bee when you’re all done with your time in hell.

P.S.
I stumbled on this other site that has a real and current discussion of the UofC as an educational option. It may be useful for some of some of you parents weighing in on your child’s university education:
http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=14506

So, I’m back in Chicago. Back in classes. Spanish is going well and Logic is quite fun. I was just sitting around thinking about the strange interpretation of if… then statements. In logic, they’re only ever false if the “if” part is true and the “then” part is false. For instance – imagine taking a business to court because they won’t refund your money despite the fact that they sold you inferior products and have the slogan :

If it’s the best in its class – then you bought it here and it comes with a 100% money-back guarantee!

Well, it turns out that, strictly speaking, they haven’t made their statement false by refusing to give you your money back. The antecedent is false – or so the assumption goes – so regardless of how the consequent turns out, the statement is logically true. Odd, you think…me too. I’m more in favor of pegging such statements as “maybe” or “unknown” statements. I’m not sure if I’ll be given that option this quarter.

It’s cold here. 37° F now. Rainy too. I’ll write more later.

You know, I’ve been investing in stocks since the day I was able. I made some exceptional returns a few years back, but the past few months have been brutal. You already knew that, but wait: here’s something you may not expect. I DO NOT WANT YOU TO BAIL ME OUT.

I knew exactly what I was doing: risking my money; you did not risk my money. If I lost it all at the casino, I would not expect you to reimburse me. If I maxed out my credit cards, I would not expect you to reimburse me. If I ate out every day, bought cigarettes and alcohol, drove expensive cars and never used public transportation, and then opened my bank account to find I was in the red… I would not expect you to reimburse me.

On top of that, if I became a multi millionaire tomorrow, because of risks I took years ago when others were too risk averse – I certainly would not expect you to have your hand out. I’d already be pissed that I had to pay ridiculously high taxes on money I risked to build companies you work for.

You see, I may be young, but it seems obvious enough to me… Your money should be yours, my money should be mine, and we should be able to do with it as we please. (Whoa, almost beginning to sound like a free market.) You buy hamburgers with your five dollars of discretionary income every week, I buy stocks with mine. You go broke: your problem. I go broke: my problem.

Now, being the humanitarian I am, I may decide to help you, but I certainly would not want to be forced to. If I were forced to, I would consider it to be robbery.

So, there are a few million of us. We risk our money, we lose our money: yeah, our problem. The fact that we have less money may impact your life, you may want to do something about it. But it should be your choice, you know, how to use your money.

And if we team up, and make excuses for each other, and convince ourselves that it is OK to rob you, well then, what have we learned? Not much. But you, well, you have learned to take your money and run. You certainly should not ever let it happen again. Of course, something else happens too: we destroy the free market. We tell you what to do with your money, and all of us lose.

So, there are millions of us. Group us under common names: call us corporations. When we go busted, because of our own decisions – if you have money, and if you have sense, take your money and run. We’ll all be better off. Hell, some other group of people might come along, under a different name, and they might take our place. They may even be better. They may even be foreign.

Us… we’ll muddle through. We’ll get jobs if there are any. If any of you bailer-outers were dense enough to stick around, maybe you can pay us to do something. Maybe we’ll pay off our own debt. Maybe we’ll stop making excuses when we realize no one is listening. Maybe we’ll take responsibility for what we’ve done and what we’ll do.

Oh, the possibilites, when I control my money and you control yours. So take yours and run, while you still have yours.

Well, I’m working on graph theory. Thought I’d throw out a little puzzle, in case you’re bored this Sunday afternoon. The challenge: connect the circles with the same numbers, but don’t allow any of your connections to intersect. You shouldn’t go outside the rectangle.

It’s not terribly difficult, but might entertain you for a minute or two.

picture of twelve circles in a rectangle