To bend, but not break-my vision of cultural change In a conversation with a friend of mine recently we found common ground (he's a moderate liberal) in our suspicion of the centralizing tendencies of the EU. I said with some passion, "I want the English to remain English, the Germans to remain German, the Spanish to remain Spanish, and yes, even the French, should remain French." I value diversity and I believe it adds color to our lives. But is diversity necessarily fostered by mixing inimical peoples in a cocktail that is as likely to foam over in an orgy of violence instead of imparting a pleasant cosmopolitan flavor? But that begs the question, what is "German," or "French," or for that matter, "American." In fact, I wondered, what is it to be "Southern?" Fried Chicken? NASCAR? Being of the "Bible Belt?" We know that the American South has its own culture. Just as New England or the West Coast have their own distinct regionalisms. But these cultures have changed greatly. Consider the South for instance. Before 1860, it would not have been characterized as particularly soaked in Christianity, especially in comparison with Puritan New England and New York's Burned-Over District. But the past 140 years have witnessed the explosive growth of the Baptist sect as it became the South's dominant denomination (numerically if not culturally) and the gentle decline of New England Protestantism in the face of Irish Catholicism. It seems likely that Cotton Mather would have feel more at home in Mississippi than Massachusetts. Or would he? The book Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America argues for the continuity of American regionalisms, even back to Merry Old England. There is something that is ineffably "Southern" or "New England," that remains the sum of its parts, though the constituents may evolve and shift over the generations. Similarly, the Mediterranean littoral of Europe still retains much of its ancient character despite its many changes. Though the peoples are Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) instead of pagan and their diet has changed in the details (pasta), they still preserve a continuity with their forefathers. Italian culture is no longer Roman culture, but it is not unrecognizable, and a Roman of the past might very well be able to assimilate after baptism into the Church and acculturation into the pasta consuming habits of moderns. Italian is a lineal descendent of Latin and olive oil still figures large in their cuisine. In addition, the Italians self-consciously view the Romans as their ancestors, and cherish their cultural relics and artifacts. Much the same can be said of Greeks, with their Koine dialect and the resurrection of the Olympics. This stands in sharp contrast with the peoples of the southern Mediterranean, the North Africans and Egyptians. Though the Berber peoples still have ancient ties through the language of their forefathers, the southern Mediterranean is now an Arab shore. Modern day Algerians have little in common with St. Augustine or Tertullian, North African Church Fathers remembered more often along the Mediterranean's north shore. Egyptians do not speak the tongue of their ancestors, though Coptic is preserved as the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. These people now look to Arabia as their mythological ancestral home, and are cut off from own genetic heritage. Between the 7th and 9th centuries a cultural revolution occurred, and peoples from the strait of Gibraltar to the Sinai "switched teams" so to speak. Similarly, California after the American conquest went from being part of Hispanic civilization to being the westernmost extension of the Anglo world. Today, Hispanic civilization is reclaiming it. But this is not an evolutionary transition but a revolutionary one. The character of the people is changing so fast that the next generation may very well look to Mexico City and not Washington D.C. for their foundational myths. Cultures are not static. Neither are races or civilizations or humanity as a whole. We step gingerly into the future and shed old coats for new. What it means to be "European" or "Chinese" is highly dependent on historical context. But the tenuous bonds of shared myths often connect these long-lived civilizations to their previous incarnations. Chinese and Indian civilization still retain their distinctive characteristics despite their many transformations. On the other hand, areas where Islam has won converts often seem to revolt against their own pasts and instead tie themselves to the myth of the Arab peoples [1]. Pakistan looks toward its Islamic heritage, its membership in the Ummah, rather than the Indus Valley civilization or its pre-Islamic Hindu maharajahs. For those of us who care about the character of Western culture, it is important I think for us to communicate that we don't wish to stop the march of history. Myself, I cherish the West's liberalism, but liberalism is just the most recent child of Western civilization, and certainly did not characterize the Roman Imperium or the feudal monarchies. The West will change, but it must be allowed to evolve more slowly at a natural pace. The post-Modernist critique of common norms and values, and the economically and politically fueled growth of non-Western cultures within Western civilization tend to lean toward the outbreak of revolutionary rather than evolutionary changes. Certain Islamic communities, and to a lesser extent Latinos in the United States, seem almost hermetically sealed off from the dialogue of the West. If one projects birthrates in places like the Netherlands, one can see an Islamic rather than a Dutch future. This is will result in a shift in civilization, a revolution of ideas and foundational myths. Just as Anatolia moved from the Greek world to the Turkish world in a few centuries, so the Netherlands might become an outpost of the Dar-al-Islam in northern Europe. The key is that a culture evolves by picking up singular traits from others, but retains most of the pervious incarnation's characteristics. For instance, though Italians became Christian, they retained their native tongue. In contrast, the Muslims of North Africa Islamicized and Arabicized simultaneously, discarding the suite of cultural traits that characterized the Latin-Punic complex that centered around the urban areas of North Africa. Similarly, many Latino immigrants to the United States seem intent on preserving the whole suite of cultural tendencies that manifested themselves south of the Rio Grande. Obviously on can not be Catholic and Protestant simultaneously, one can not claim both English and Spanish as first languages, one can not (plausibly) assert both Santa Anna and Winfield Scott as military heroes. The multicultural project in the modern West is leading us down the path of North Africa, not Italy. Two hundred years from now, George Washington may matter as much to "Americans" as St. Augustine mattered to the Maghrebi Arabs that were trekking to Al-Andalus to join the service of the new Caliph in Cordoba in his battles against the Christians of Europe. [1] See Ibn Warraq's Why I am not a Muslim. Also, Christianity has done this periodically in the context of European cultures, but the tendency has been mitigated by the rather slow Christianization of Europe which resulted in its greater assimilation and accommodation with native habits and mores.