The Americanization Movement

The Americanization movement greeted immigrants between 1895 and 1924. Few people nowadays know about the Americanization movement, but it swept the nation at a level comparable to that of abolition movement, prohibition, women's suffrage and the Great Awakenings. In 1918 two branches of the Federal government ran Americanization programs. One had over 100 employees, surveyed the activities of 50,000 local organizations working with foreign populations, and coordinated tactics with at least 15,000. Industries and Presidents participated in this effort. The Americanization movement provides a traditional culturist model we should all know about.

Frances Kellor led the Americanization movement through all of its phases. Raised by a single mother, she suffered from poverty in the small boom town of Coldwater Michigan. After dropping out of school to help her mother as a laundress, she accidently shot herself in the hand. Two wealthy sisters adopted her and the rest, as they say, is history. She started writing for the local paper, attending debates in the church, studied and ended up the third female lawyer to graduate from Cornell. In her long career she wrote voluminously, headed countless organizations and took a lead role in Teddy Roosevelt and Charles Evans Hughes' presidential campaigns. Her rags to riches story made her the perfect person to lead the movement.

Kellor tried to Americanize Americans and immigrants alike. Rather than blame immigrants for their poverty, she scolded Americans for not providing opportunities. To this end, she pushed for better housing and work conditions and nearly started our system of Adult Education. Americans that insulted immigrants divided us. Employers that exploited their workers created anti-American radicals. The rash of strikes, domestic terrorism and Russian revolution convinced her that employers needed to give a fair shake to immigrant employees. From immigrants she expected love of America manifest in attempts to learn English, pass naturalization exams and generally celebrate their new nation. She pushed American mores, values and standards of cleanliness. America had to provide opportunities and immigrants had to accept them. Thus Kellor utilized both progressive and nationalist tactics in the pursuit of unity.

Upon hearing of the Americanization movement today, many people cringe. Multiculturalists recoil at the idea of coordinating any attitudes favorable towards our nation and culture. The multiculturalists might be shocked to know that immigrants themselves designed much of the Americanization movement's content. When Kellor started working on Americanization, she lived in New York's immigrant filled Lower East Side. There immigrant organizations such as the Educational Alliance had used the term "Americanization" and pushed for it as early as 1895. Immigrants pressured their school boards to keep teachers with accents out of the classrooms. They set up English classes for adults and held popular lecture series on American history. Many immigrants, believe it or not, loved America and wanted to do all they could to become “real Americans.” As one who had done it, Kellor intimately understood that providing the opportunity to escape poverty endeared people to our nation.

Culturists might be surprised by the amount of multiculturalism this movement employed. One of the biggest events put on by the Americanization movement was "Americanization Day." Every Fourth of July, parades Americans came out to celebrate the new immigrants who had passed their nationalization tests. In 1918, 70,000 immigrants marched in New York to show their pride in their adopted country. And though many American flags flew, the participants wore the garbs and presented the gifts of their home countries. The motto of Kellor's organization that sponsored the event read, "Many Peoples, One Nation." Kellor consistently fought against restricting immigration. As a nationalist lesbian progressive culturist, she never failed to battle regressive forces in any culture. But she did not equate being a good American with uniformity.

Academics today hold the Americanization in low regard. Many would note that during World War One Kellor's group changed its motto to "America First." They ran programs to show immigrants how Americans lived and dressed and promoted a very positive image of America. One wonders if these academics would have us ignore culture and promote a negative attitude towards our nation. Culturists, on the other hand, might think Kellor too accepting of immigrant cultures. Both might scoff at her lending support to German immigrants who the War Department made leave coastal areas during World War One. But from Kellor's perspective, this policy both prevented resentment and fostered security. No one need blindly adopt the Americanization movement's tactics, but knowing about our culturist predecessors can give all of us a more nuanced understanding of our traditions and our policy options.

Three Culturist Questions

Three Culturist Questions
Yesterday I spoke to a group of libertarians. Some of the Q and A follows:

One of the most interesting questions was, "Doesn't the universal desirability of technology such as air-conditioning show a global value system towards which all are moving?" My polished answers was,

If I pray five times a day, believe blasphemers should be killed and beat my wife for showing her hair, does the presence of air conditioning indicate cultural similarities? Secondly, people know about consumer goods, but do not organize their lives so as to maximize their access to them as we do. People have tons of babies even though they are poor. Not everyone makes attaining goods a top priority. Lastly, infrastructure makes civilizations look superficially alike, but values can still greatly vary. For example, the Aztecs, Hitler, Iran and the U.S. all have political systems and roads. But values still make diversity real.

Another challenging question asked, "Isn't Islamic attack was justified by our occupation of their land? Aren't they, in fact, freedom fighters?" My four part answer went,

First of all, much of multiculturalism is driven by the idea that we have been a bad and arrogant force upon the world. As world history shows a poor self-image facilitates decline, the West should reaffirm that it has done more good than nearly any other civilization. Secondly, killing for God happens for offensive reasons. It is a common feature in the world and we should not doubt it is possible. Thirdly, if there is a country where people chant "death to America" regularly, I don't care if they are doing it for religious or "social justice" reasons, we are safer not having them in our nation. Getting back to the first response, since I love the West, and don't think it evil, I want to protect it.

A final question queried, "Should break away republics such as Quebec and Kosovo, with cultural majorities, be recognized?"

Boundaries are flexible. Though we may joke about Canada being an American state, in reality, their fate is not for us to decide. But, this case should give us pause in our unquestioned celebration of diversity. What if California wanted autonomy as a Spanish speaking state? We'd be nuts to accept it. We had better recognize that culturally distinct regions sometimes try to break away. This started WW I. Diversity can hurt.

In Kosovo, we clearly have an interest and a side. In recognizing Kosovo we created a non-Western, Islamic majority entity in the Western sphere. This is wrong. We make a culturist error when we pretend we do not have a side in international situations. In the Middle East, for example, we are on Israel's side, Muslims are definitely on the Palestinian side. We are not neutral there or in Europe.

It was a wonderful event; four books sold and lots of conversation. What do you think of my answers?

Multiculturalists, Crime, Terror and Diversity!

Multiculturalists' slogan is "celebrate diversity" aids and abets terrorists. Under this paradigm rather than judge we must accept all cultures. Their take on diversity conceives of it as superficial; all cultures are equally American. The Institute Studies Institute begs to differ. As culturists, ISI believes we have a core culture and some people's beliefs are so diverse they offend Western ideals; some people actually hate America. Usually ISI celebrates Western culture. Today, they sponsored lectures about threats from those who seek to destroy the country we hope multiculturalists will someday also recognize as unique and worth defending.

Like many policeman Bob Fromme took a second job; his was guarding a tobacco store in his home state of North Carolina. Daily he saw groups of middle eastern men come into the store with big bags of cash. They would buy 220 cartons each. Fromme explained that a $75 carton of cigarettes costs $2 to make. Nearly all of the expense comes in the form of taxes. In North Carolina the carton only costs $17. These men would fill vans with cigarettes, remove the tax stickers, put fake ones on and sell them in their stores in other states. They would make $39,000 a day running this scam. They also did identity theft and credit card scams. They bribed bank officials with cash to get loans to start tobacco stores.

This might sound like a harmless, even helpful, scam - except for the fact that these men were sent here to discover a low visibility scam to send the money back to hezbollah. Up until September 11, 2001 they were the single biggest terrorist killers of Americans in the world. This organization has dedicated itself to destroying the only pro-Western nation in the Middle East - Israel. To this end they promote suicide killing and bombing of civilians. Though they have not been able to get exact figures, the guess is the tabacco smuggling ring sent $100 million dollars back to our enemies, Hezbollah. Fromme's investigation into this group led to fourteen other terror related cells. Not all immigrants love America.

Everyone of these men were from Lebanon. To get to America these men went to Caracas Venezuela and bought fake visas. They had to go to Caracas because hezbollah had blown up our embassy in Lebanon. Their leader pleaded political asylum. The airport people did not believe him, but procedures dictated he get thirty days in our country before a hearing. In the meantime he paid an American woman $3000 dollars to marry him. He was already married in Lebanon and married another woman simultaneously. They also bought identifications from middle Eastern students. To get family in they tried to bribe INS personel. This got the leader caught. At his time of arrest he had nine separate driver's licences. Not all people respect Americans and American institutions.

Multiculturalists will tell you that aberration does not represent the mainstream of Lebanon's wonderful culture. In order to avoid judging cultures, they reflexively define all negative parts as not being of the culture. To them no culture can be negative by definition. A speaker before Officer Fromme discussed how the muslim brotherhood, a violent group that preaches terrorism against the West and genocide of the Jews, come into somewhat neutral mosques and muscle out the moderates. They then turn the mosques into a centers of hate. This reminds one of how Muslims took over Lebanon. Lebanon used to be largely Christian, not any more. Multiculturalists will tell you that none of this behavior is part of Lebanese culture. Culturists are not so naive; letting Lebonese into our nation entails big risks. Many are dedicated to destroying all non-Muslims and moderate coreligionist. The ISI, Officer Fromme and other culturists understand that diversity exists and that this means we must value and protect our culture.

Culturst Reaction to a Polygamist Compound

Could the authorities be wrong? Might the polygamists' lifestyle be moral? After all, who are we to judge? They want several wives per man. Is that strange? Lots of men would privately tell you they see some merit to the system. When Oprah had polygamists on her show, the women said they had chosen it. And isn't choice what is at stake here? Don't they have a right to choose their own lifestyles?

If you judge by the standard of individual rights, polygamy cannot be condemned. By definition, the individual rights model detaches the individual from any sort or level of social judgment. If I want to do drugs, drop out of school or become a stripper, that is my business and my business alone. Furthermore, no one dare tell me it is wrong. In our "don't disrespect me," "self-esteem" culture, you cannot judge anything but judging.

Culturism provides values where individualism cannot. Culturism would have us ask, "What if everybody in the culture acted as you do?" If we give Mormon polygamists the right to marry, they might be able to handle it. They do, after all, have some sort of moral code to which they subscribe. But what if a pimp decided to marry his harem? Soon we could end up in a culture where abuse and selling women constituted a moral good. Our laws should, as laws have traditionally, considered the impact on the wider society, not just the individual. Laws that only consider individual proclivities, encode anarchy, not government.

If you think some sort of innate moral code would stop this from becoming common, get real! Cultural diversity has included some stable cultures that treated women pretty badly. Machismo and the exploitation of women is a common norm. Culturism recognizes that man left unguided is at least as likely to adopt an inner-city gang ethic as to adopt what the Puritans called a community of saints model. If you take the individualist creed of not judging to heart, you can end up with some pretty ugly results. Just look at our schools.

Extending our "what if everyone did it?" critique; what if every did drugs, dropped out of school and became whores? Our economy would literally go to pot. College would become a pipe dream for most. Even those with a college degree would not have economic opportunities that constitute real choice. Instead of a system of mutual benefit, in a contracting economy, one person's gain can only come from another's loss. In such a world being successful and brutal would be synonymous. But your violence could only get you small pickings without much of a future. In such a world a "live for today" ethos would be the only one which corresponds to reality.

Culturist thought provides a basis for a moral existence and condemning polygamy. We judge on our traditional values and our morals on the vision of progress we value. If other cultures want to have polygamy they are welcome to it. But culturism, unlike multiculturalism, notes that Western nations do have a core culture. Polygamy is not a part of it. Everything from our laws to our insurance policies would require rewriting for us to accommodate it. Few of us would be comfortable living in the world that would result if everyone had the right to do whatever they wanted without any regard for the sustainability of Western culture. Polygamy is wrong because it goes against our values and undermines America’s solvency.

Culturist Censorship, Free Speech and Dangerous Ironies

I submit most of my blog entries to internet article distributors. Recently, several of my articles have been rejected for the political beliefs they convey. Dangerously, this censorship does not stem from malice or ambition; it stems from increasingly commonplace cultural assumptions about what can be said.

A real life censorship letter from a nice guy earnestly doing his job follows:

I have reviewed your article, and the problem that I see is with this
paragraph:

"We should also teach that the Middle East is Islamic. Israel is on
our side. Those who would destroy it are our enemies. The Muslim
lifestyle is backwards, oppressive and ridiculous according to our
values. Their treatment of women and gays are reasons to keep Islamic
nations in check. They actually believe in theocracies and condemn
freedom of speech. Not only that, but China is a racist nation that
does not embrace democracy."

Although I understand the point you are making regarding the
subjectivity of multiculturalism, the material above, specifically
"China is a racist nation" is over the line.

"If you have any further questions, please let me know! :)"

My response in its rocking entirety follows!

"Dearest (censored)!

China only lets Chinese become citizens. Ditto for Japan and Korea. They allow some to become citizens by marrying those of their race. But what THEY deem "half-blood" children are excluded from the military and so many jobs. This is reality. If you ask them, they will confirm the fact proudly. Perhaps I can put in a qualifiers or explanations. But writing that they allow people to be citizens regardless of race would be a lie. China, Japan and Korea are officially and legally racist nations. These are not spurious accuasations, they are basic facts, whether we will it or not.

Those who have read my writing know that I respect Islam's right to promote their own culture within Islamic nations. Notice I say they are backwards, "according to our values." Few would, hopefully deny, that hatred of gays is backwards according to our values. My point is that it is not backwards according to their values and they have a right to their values. Those who appreciate diversity should be willing to let other nations have thier own cultures.

Thanks for carrying about accuracy, John Press"

Frighteningly, this exchange had no malice. I recognize that the person responding to me was only doing their job. His company does not deem it necessary to err on the side of openness when it comes to free speech. They want to err on the side limited speech. Unfortunately, in times when we could use some frank discussion, the cowing of this media outlet does not represent an isolated incident. My experience and the removal of the Dutch film FITNA for criticizing Islam earlier this week have become standard operating procedure.

If, rather than writing "China is a racist nation" I had written "America is a racist nation," I'm sure there would not have been a problem. Self-deprication and unqualified praise of the other are safe. As the West launched anti-racist thought and free speech into the world; as China is not only racist but does not support free speech, this censorship presents an irony within an irony. But unlike most ironies, this one is becoming increasingly commonplace and presents a threat to our most sacred values.

Culturist Extremes in the Philippines

Can you argue for epidemics of deadly cholera? If no one could endorse cholera, Western medicine becomes a universal good. If universal goods exist then diversity is just an illusion. In the case of disease, the West becomes the best. Herein lays the fatal flaw for anti-Western multiculturalists. This trap causes Warwick Anderson’s book, Colonial Pathologies, to choke on its own smirking values.

Colonial Pathologies, depicts the work of the medical corps after the United States runs the Spanish out of the Philippines. As a typical leftist, Anderson hates to say anything good about the West. He paints our presence there as irrational and tyrannical. Anderson repeatedly mocks the medical officers’ obsession with “promiscuous defecation.” He decries our obsession with using latrines as well as the Filipinos’ “promiscuous spitting.” Overall, he argues that the medical model we impose needlessly equates near obsessive fastidiousness with civilization. The concept of hygiene provides an excuse for us to practice cultural imperialism.

The problem with Anderson’s snickering at America’s efforts stems from their being implemented to stop cholera epidemics. Our obsessions with latrines, cleanliness and defecation actually lower the death rate. To defame the doctor’s efforts and laud the indigenous, in this case, requires belittling the importance of ending cholera epidemics. While he and other post-modern leftists multiculturalists want to make everything about the imposition of “arbitrary hegemonic Western discourse,” the imposition of medicine translates into a matter of life and death.

Anderson’s coreligionists sneer at “up-lift” as a rationale for our imperialism. To them “progress” means nothing. Ironically, this means they have to argue that the education system we built for the Filipino’s has no merit. They sneer by putting words in quotation marks. The quotation marks mean, “according to arbitrary Western standards.” Sneering at people who rid a nation of cholera takes a lot of gumption. In order to be consistent, postmodern leftist multiculturalists decrying Western ways must put quotation marks around “education,” “filth,” “ignorance,” “disease” and “early death.”

Aggrandizing ourselves by bashing multiculturalist leftists makes culturists popular. Here comes the hard part. Culturists enter where hypocritical leftist postmodernists fear to tread. Culturists can accept that we might want to put postmodernist quotation marks around “disease,” “ignorance” and “death.” To Westerners saying “quote, unquote death” seem ludicrous. But culturists accept that some cultures prefer disease to cleanliness. Anderson relays that the Filipino nurses who tried to get people to use latrines were mocked. Many cultures do not value learning. Suicide bombers do not consider death the greatest evil or long life the greatest good. Not even death means the same thing in all cultures!

Culturism recognizes diversity, but rejects relativity. We consider our truths non-negotiable because in our culture long life, education, cleanliness, strong economies and the avoidance of disease are top priorities. Those in “timeless villages” do not stress about progress like we do. Our safety requires recognizing diversity exists. Letting foreign peoples in and invading other countries without understanding diversity destabilizes us. Only when we fully accept the existence and breadth of cultural diversity can we appreciate that our ways can perish. If we want our values to continue, if we want safe spaces for Westerners, we need to recognize that our culture is special and requires protection.

Culturist Textbook Lessons from Iran

People’s little multicultural bubble has been popped and outrage and indignation have followed!! French researchers at Freedom House found out that women in Iranian textbooks are “not presented as independent individuals. Rather, they are a man’s wife, mother, sister, or daughter.” Worse yet, though minorities’ prophets are given some respect, the Iranian state is portrayed as Persian Islamic. The textbooks criticize the West and proclaim Israel and ally of the West and the enemy. The Middle East gets presented as sharing a common Islamic identity which is presented as the exclusive religion of social justice and the defender of the poor and oppressed both in Iran and abroad!!

Multiculturalists say that they believe in diversity, but when it hits them in the face they are shocked. They cannot believe that any textbooks “privilege” some “lifestyles” and are resolutely not “objective.” Multiculturalists very often confuse their little play pen for the entire world. In fact, some people believe in their religion so much that they conceive of others as heretics. But diversity exists. Many women believe female circumcision is proper. Diversity exists. Some people do not believe in Western civilization or its premises. Since multiculturalists despise privileging Western civilization, it is especially surprising that they did not expect textbooks in Iran to share in their sentiment.

Culturists realize that diversity exists. The views of nations in the Middle East do not shock culturists. Deeper yet, because culturists realize that there are sides they do not condemn the Iranian textbooks. From time immemorial, the rituals, initiation rites and textbooks of a society have been designed to introduce people to their society. Iranians’ behavior is normal. Multiculturalists saying we have no core culture to promote is what is abnormal and should be shocking to anyone who knows anything about basic cultural dynamics. We and Iranians have different views and different sides. If you did not know, the Middle East is Iran's turf and Israel is their enemy. It is sad that it takes a study of Iranian textbooks for multiculturalists to know that.

Multiculturalism is not the default position of humanity. Even in the West, the multiculturalists’ position is perverse. They become physically ill when people state that there are natural tendencies and limits to humans. Yes, women are largely shown in the home in Iranian textbooks. All cultures until Western civilization have considered the home women’s domain. We should celebrate our evolving vision. It is proper that we try to foster images of opportunity. But it is strange to expect other nations to teach our vision. Multiculturalists cringe at the thought that some people in our country may not be comfortable with half of the families represented in textbooks having same sex parents. At some point multiculturalists must come to understand that their vision is not the world vision.

Our textbooks should follow the natural culturist tendencies of the world. We should also teach that the Middle East is Islamic. Israel is on our side. Those who would destroy it are our enemies. The Muslim lifestyle is backwards, oppressive and ridiculous according to our values. Their treatment of women and gays are reasons to keep Islamic nations in check. They actually believe in theocracies and condemn freedom of speech. Not only that, but China is a racist nation that does not embrace democracy. Culturist textbooks would truly acknowledge diversity. They would note that we are different and special. They would also, ironically, safeguard women and gay’s freedoms better than the multiculturalist ones.

Obama is Much Worse than Joe McCarthy

Last week Retired General Merill "Tony" McPeak, a co-chairman of Barack Obama's campaign, accused Bill Clinton of McCarthyism. He did so because Clinton off-handedly questioned Barack's patriotism. First of all, Obama's patriotism, even before it was found out that his hero says "God Damn America," is questionable and open to questioning. Secondly, Obama and his commrade's tactics are worse than McCarthy's.

McCarthy went after communists in our State Department. Bad people exist. Despite people's outrage at the suggestion, not all people love America. And working for the State Department is not a right. To work there you must be willing to have your background checked. McCarthy never went after people from the private sector.

Obama on the other hand, went after Imus for offending his sensibility. Obama attacks people in the private sector for humor! And Obama undermines our safety in areas of national security as well. We need to be able to talk about immigration, achievement gaps in areas of economics and education as well as the state of our popular culture. But whenever we speak of these issues in ways that offend Barack and his ilk, they shout "racism." They do this expressly to end the discussion and silence anyone who would disagree with them.

Obama needs be willing to talk about culture. He needs to back off of race baiting tactics. We can help him by using the word "culturist." That helps us separate cultural issues from race issues: culturism from racism. We need to have discussions concerning the sensitive issues listed above. Our national security depends upon it. Until we adopt this word, until we are able to have this sort of discourse rationally, the last thing we need is Barack Obama hypocritically fighting our free speech under the name of fighting McCarthyism.

China, Tibet and Culturism

China is reasserting its control over Tibet with its usual disdain for the right to peacefully assemble and freedom of the press. China "liberated" Tibet from its traditional way of life, and sent the Dalai Lama into exile, in 1959. They noted that Tibet had the highest percentage of priestly class living off the peasants ever recorded (25%). Han Chinese were then told that they could escape the one child per family rule if they moved to the Tibetan region of China.

Culturism holds that majority cultures have the right to define, protect and promote themselves. Culturism does not buy into the universal human rights regime. It would seem culturism gives carte blanch approval to the Chinese actions. The tough question for culturists is "does the majority in China have right to do whatever it wills to minorities within its population?"

Tibetans still comprise the majority culture in Tibet. Despite China's discrimination for its own people and attempt to take Tibet over demographically, Tibet's environment is so harsh that ethnic Chinese are still under 10 % of the population. Since Tibet has long had sovereignty and a distinct culture, and has a chance to regain said status, culturist principles condemn China's actions. Within Tibet's old borders, tibetans should have sovereignty.

But from here on culturism takes its usual hard realist stance. Not all cultures believe in Western values. China is a race-based nation which does not prize democracy or free speech. That is China's right. Culturism would never condemn China for following its historic cultural principles internally. China, like Islamic nations, is free to look at our debt, crime, racial issues, rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, as well as our educational failure and conclude that our ways are not to be desired. Culturism wants to protect our way of life for us, but respects the fact that a diversity of international principles exists.

What can we do about Tibet? Not much. Our military is already spread thin trying to make the Islamic Middle East Western. To conduct a war against China over Tibet, we would have to borrow money from them. As it is, if we complain officially or boycott the Chinese olympics they could retaliate by damaging our economy. Our not knowing where the Western world ends, poor economy and moral behavior have weakened Western power. Before we worry about others' sovereignty we must worry about our own. If you wish to help Tibet, work hard, buy American goods, be moral and get out of debt.

Solving the Achievement Gap

Latinos score lower than whites on tests and drop-out of school more often and it is largely their fault!!!! The same goes for Black American youth! Wow!!! That was risky. One can get fired for saying such things. So to cover my buns let me just clarify that nothing in this paragraph had anything to do with race. Culture, not I.Q. or innate ability, explains this discrepancy. And if you really want to minimize the achievement gap between Latinos, Asians, Whites and Blacks, you should read on.

Fifth graders in Taipei, Taiwan spend an average of 13 hours a week on homework; their counterparts in Minneapolis spend slightly more than four hours a week on homework. In Asian cultures not having completed one's homework normally results in shame. Completing your homework is positively associated with academic success. Cultural differences provide a complete and satisfactory explanation as to why students in Asian countries do better at math.

The concept that racism plays any part in the achievement gap comes from the twisted logic of education professionals. As much as anything, their thought patterns create the disparity. Educators' fealty to multiculturalism makes us unable to do anything but praise cultural diversity. Yet, at heart, these multicultural educators take cultural diversity to be very shallow. They cannot imagine that it could be so important as to impact something as fundamental as study habits or the love of education. After discounting culture as a factor, the educators correctly discount innate ability as a factor. And from here on the errors of their assumptions lead to more and more destructive conclusions.

After discounting culture and race as possible sources of the achievement gap, the education professionals still have to find a culprit. Their solution? Institutional racism. This means that the achievement gap becomes proof of schools being racist. The other cause cited is poverty. But since this cannot have anything to do with culture or race, this explanation becomes proof that society is racist.

Teaching the youth of your country that your society is unjust and racist is something no culture that wanted to survive would ever do. Beyond endangering our society, though, it fosters anti-social behavior in youth. Would you work to fit into a racist society in which you have no hope of success? This attitude pervading the education environment largely explains why so many Black American youth consider studying to be "acting white" and giving in to "the man."

To help, we need to be willing to take a culturist point of view, to consider that culture might in fact be able to impact achievement. Such an explanation would reinstate the vital connection between merit and achievement. Culturist interpretations of the achievement gap can prompt cultures to take a good hard look at themselves. Meetings and community based solutions - such as tutoring centers - could then be discussed as solutions. The culturist perspective has the merit of better reflecting reality than saying schools are racist against Latinos and Blacks, but not Asians and Whites. Beyond this, it is much more likely to motivate students and close the achievement gap than calling schools and society racist.