Mexicans are (almost) least in favor of free speech: One important indication of assimilation to American society is a belief in free speech. Nothing upsets me more than to hear about some eccentric locked up in a European prison for saying wacky things like there was no Holocaust. They won't lock up actual criminals, but are only too happy to imprison people who say the wrong thing. So let's see which ethnic groups are best assimilated in terms of free speech values. The General Social Survey asked Americans if they feel that anti-religionists should be allowed to speak in their communities. Here is the percent who said yes:
Percent saying anti-religionists should be allowed to speak
Hungarians 81.5
Greeks 79.6
Russians 79.2
Scots 78.9
Yugoslavs 78.2
Swedes 77.8
French 77.3
Norwegians 77.0
Lithuanians 76.5
Filipinos 76.5
English/Welsh 75.4
Italians 74.5
Japanese 73.8
Danes 73.0
Swiss 72.8
Poles 72.8
Irish 72.7
Germans 71.4
Spain 71.4
Finns 71.3
USA 71.2
Belgians 70.7
French Canadians 69.5
Chinese 67.7
Czechs 67.7
Rumanians 67.4
Austrians 66.9
Portuguese 66.2
West Indians 66.0
American Indian 65.1
Blacks 64.8
India 63.2
Arabs 62.5
Mexicans 62.0
Netherlands 61.2
Puerto Ricans 59.3
Roughly speaking, whites and Asians are free speechers, others less so. This, with other evidence I've seen, suggests that white immigrants assimilate best to American society, with Asians being an exception to the rule. Blacks and American Indians show how difficult it can be for non-whites to adopt American ways: they have had hundreds of years to develop a belief in free speech, but have been left behind by even the most recent immigrants. And speaking of recent immigrants (I can never pass up the opportunity to address the Mexican question) Mexicans are almost at the bottom of this list. In an earlier post, they had a similar ranking on the question about allowing racists to speak in public. As Hispanics become a more powerful influence at the ballot box, we might see the day where the things I am writing on this blog could get me a long stretch in the pen.
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
I wonder whether this post is influenced by the October 4 riot at Columbia University where members of the Chicano Caucus prevented Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project from speaking. Speaking to the press afterwards, the Chicano Caucus repeated said that the Minutemen were not a "legitimate voice in the immigration debate" and of the shutdown of Gilchrist said, "When they brought this speaker, this was an attack on our community and our families. We simply expressed our right to freedom of speech.” Where their right of freedom of speech means to not let others hear Gilchrist.
ReplyDeleteThis shows the route by which the advancement of knowledge and civilization are destroyed by immigration and any sort of population changeover which would make us like Syria or Libya.
ReplyDeleteNations which do not allow heresy and blasphemy, nor support free speech and publication in general, like the two mentioned above, can have thousands or tens of thousands in per capita income, yet show scientific publication rates per million on the level of the poor countries of tropical Africa
Heresy and blasphemy have nothing to do with scienctific discovery. Perhaps for some leftists blasphemy is some sort of proxy for open mindedness. Censorship of blasphemy or profanity has been a constant feature of Western civilization up until a few decades ago, when they were replaced by cultural Marxist inspired hate speech and political correctness. In the liberal strongholds of the West one may say all manner of blasphemies, just don't say that homosexuality isn't normal. You might end up in jail.
ReplyDeletePuerto Ricans, who are American citizens, come in last. It looks like 108 years of being party of America has sure inculcated American values.
ReplyDeleteAre there a variety of questions that measure the popularity of free speech? My concern is that the particular topic will drive the results from place to place. How about "Should a speaker be allowe to denounce the country's leader?"