Coca Cola's pro-multiculturalism, anti-American "America the Beautiful" video ads

During the Super Bowl, Coca Cola released an ad featuring people singing America the Beautiful in various languages. This set off a firestorm on Twitter and elsewhere, with others posting in support and opposition to the ad. For instance, Lt. Col. Allen West quotes Teddy Roosevelt's support for assimilation and says (link):

I am quite sure there may be some who appreciated the commercial, but Coca Cola missed the mark in my opinion. If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing “American the Beautiful” in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come - doggone we are on the road to perdition. This was a truly disturbing commercial for me, what say you?

Unlike him, I had no illusions that Coca Cola was much of an American company. They might be a bit of an American icon, but they're just another multinational corporation whose entire goal is to make money. If pushing multiculturalism will help them make money, that's what they'll do. Super Bowl ads are only minor cultural milestones. Other than that I tend to agree with him. The ad supports unity, by dividing people into islands separated by language and culture: America as a food court at a shopping mall.

Where Coca Cola really tips their hand is on the behind-the-scenes video embedded below. That video includes an openly anti-American statement and an unwitting acknowledgement that the demographic changes of recent decades have been forced.

During the slow-piano section of the video below, a woman of Native American (and possibly Mexican) descent says:

You know, somebody had called me 'those foreigners' and I just thought that was funny because actually they're the foreigners.

The "they" she's referring to are Americans, and calling Americans "foreigners" in their own land is anti-American and denies the sovereignty of the U.S. Statements like that are Reconquista 101.

Bear in mind that both the ad and the behind-the-scenes video were no doubt watched hundreds of times by top Coca Cola executives and marketers, and they decided to leave that in.

Later in the video, a woman part of a group that identified themselves as Arab-American says:

"We don't get to pick and choose whether America is diverse or not, it is diverse."

That has more truth than she and Coca Cola are perhaps willing to admit. Whether you appreciate "diversity" or not, it's something that's been forced on the U.S. Americans have never voted on whether they wanted the demographic changes of the past decades, but instead those changes have been forced on us through various forms of force and trickery [1].

Would defenders of the video support similar forced demographic changes in other countries?

Do defenders of the video agree that Americans are foreigners in their own country?

If you support the sovereignty of the U.S., perhaps it's time to switch to another brand of sugar water (other than Pepsi).

UPDATE: I fixed a typo in the title. In comments, "Matthew Myers" takes issue with this post in a novel-length comment. I'll briefly show how he's wrong:

1. Under the melting pot concept, people shed old allegiances, learn English, and otherwise assimilate into U.S. culture. That's not what's shown on the video: it features people holding on to their native languages and not fully assimilating. There's no clue on the short video that those involved speak English, and many of the scenes could be from many other countries (for instance, aside from the song, Coke could have just used part of the Pakistan ad for their product: ). That doesn't mean people need to drop their old languages, just that in such venues (the Super Bowl) they should stress how American they are, not show that they haven't fully assimilated.

2. Immigration to the U.S. has not been "natural" like the tides. It's been more like the growth of a tree farm: the hand of man guides everything it's done. At any time in our history, we could have had more or less immigration than we had if the leaders or the populace had decided that's what they want. If Bill Clinton or George W Bush had decided to reduce illegal immigration, they could have done that. Instead, Bush put on a big show. He made it look like he was doing something - even riding around in a dune buggy - all while doing things like making a pledge to the Mexican government. The 1965 Kennedy bill was - according to the quote above - not supposed to have anywhere near the impact it's had. The 1986 amnesty was supposed to end illegal immigration, and it didn't. Gray Davis could have fought for Proposition 187 but decided to drop it. A majority of California voted for Prop 187, but Davis overruled them. Nowadays, comprehensive immigration reform is promoted through various forms of force and trickery: smearing those who oppose it, bogus talking points, biased reporters that don't ask tough questions, etc. etc. All of that is involuntary: California voted for Prop 187, not against it. Reagan got support for ending illegal immigration, and that support was shown to be misplaced. There are too many other examples to list.

3. The concept of "foreigner" in this case applies not to the land, but to the country: the two are linked. A U.S. citizen is a foreigner in France and vice-versa.

If, for instance, a German said that the French are foreigners in some part of France, that German is denying the sovereignty of the French govt over that specific land.

Likewise in the U.S.: if some group of people believe that due to their ethnicity they're the real citizens of a patch of land and Americans are foreigners, they're denying the sovereignty of the U.S. govt over that patch of land.

It might be helpful for you to take some time off and think through the implications of all that, and whether that's something you want to support.

4. An American referring to a Native American as a foreigner may be accurate if one extends the term Native American to Indians from Mexico. If she's a U.S. citizen, then referring to her as a foreigner is wrong. The answer to something wrong isn't to stress some sort of racially-based rights to territory. If she were a Mexican citizen, would you think she has a right to live here no matter what the rest of us want?

5. U.S. citizens are not "foreigners" in the context of the U.S.: this territory is ours. Those on the short video may in fact be Americans. Or, they might not be: as stated above, it's hard to tell in some cases. The scene in the short video from the U.S. southwest could actually be from Mexico; the Chinatown could be many other Chinatowns around the world. Some scenes from the short video could have been "Foreigners Travel to the U.S. and Sing its Praises" or "Citizens of Other Countries Sing the Praises of the U.S. in Their Own Countries".

6. I'll let "Matthew Myers"'s personal smears serve as an indication of his level. I'll let his support for globalism and an ad designed to sell sugar water while treating the U.S. as a shopping mall stand on its own.

[1] Ted Kennedy in 1965 about his major immigration bill that kicked off those demographic changes:

"Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think..."