sN -- Apologies, didn't mean to misuse or disrespect your views, which I enjoy hearing about and learning from.

Dilettante -- Glad you've been visiting, sorry if you've decided to stop. If you're returning to this thread, though ...

"The thrust of [this posting] was not to critique immigration policies (plenty of fodder there) but to decry the presence of brown children in our schools." Well, no. As I explained in a comment above, the thrust was -- as always with my postings on immigration -- to criticize policies that are imposing a massive and risky demographic change on a country that demonstrably doesn't want it. I realize the posting itself was pretty terse, but since I've been writing about this stuff for six years now I don't see the need to spell every single one of my points out out each and every time I throw a link up.

"Look, all of us come from immigrant stock." Can I suggest that you're buying into an argument that may be worth taking a look at? It's called the "proposition nation" thesis -- basically that the U.S. has no ethnic history of its own, that it's just a nation of immigrants, etc. It's not really agreed-upon historical truth. In fact, it's a debating argument that's championed by people who want high levels of immigration, who want to suppress all discussion of who and how many come in, and who want to pre-emptively undercut any and all objections from people who already inhabit the U.S. The opposing stance (which makes more sense to me) is roughly this: 1) The U.S. has, like any other nation, its own history. 2) It was formed and shaped by an invading and then settling population (note: NOT an "immigrant" population), crossed with the slaves they brought along and the natives they conquered. 3) Its institutions are very much extensions of the Anglo world. 4) On and off, this historical nation has allowed larger or smaller groups of people to join them, on the understanding that they would assimilate to local norms. 5) A massive change in all this was imposed by the Ted Kennedy-sponsored 1965 Immigration Act, and by the multicultural establishment that has taken shape in in the wake of the '60s.

Hey, one non-whitey-centric example of why the "proposition nation" view is hideous: It leaves no way to respect the historical place and importance of black people in this country. If "we're all immigrants," then how can you object on any principled basis to letting an immigrant group numerically overwhelm blacks? Why should it matter? And so you wind up with the rather hilarious if tragic spectacle of lefties (generally big advocates for black people) advocating policies that are screwing black people over.

If your understanding of the country is a different one (we're a mix of anglos, blacks, and natives who have over the centuries folded some other groups of people into the mix), then you're perfectly comfortable saying, "Hey, black people have always been important in the U.S., slavery really is something to remember and take into account, screwing our black people over numerically would be a new form of disenfranchising them, so let's not do that." From respect-for-history to respect-for-black-people to a principled-objection-to- current-policies. Nice.

Anyway, just as a practical matter, it doesn't hurt to be aware that the "we're a nation of immigrants" line isn't in fact widely-agreed-upon-historical-truth. It's in fact a line that's peddled by the heavy-immigration/ multiculturalism crowd in order to assume and impose the set of conclusions that they want.

Chris -- Awesome job of projecting, patting yourself on the back, and generally playing thought police. I'm in sympathy with a lot of your tastes. The moral preening, though, I just don't get.

Ryan -- There's a nice side to multiculturalism and PC, being considerate and respectful and all that. I think of it as "soft" multiculturalism. But the multiculti/PC thing long ago got taken over by power-hungry interest groups, and they wield it as a club to bash the opposition with, to silence objections, and to generally get their way. These aren't sweetly-misguided people who get a little carried away sometimes. They're highly-conscious, cunning, wannabe tyrants. Some are sincere in their attachment to the ideals of multiculturalism, some are just using it to achieve power -- but past a certain point, does it really matter? It's fun that you're joining in the conversation here, by the way. You might enjoy an interview we did with Jim Kalb, who's very smart and eloquent about what he calls "the tyranny of liberalism." I don't agree with every single point of Jim's, by the way, but I always find wrestling with his arguments to be enjoyable and brain-opening.

LINK

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 10, 2009 10:57 AM

ST

Of course I checked back. Your rudeness bile and spite is exactly what I am talking about. Would you talk like that to anyone you were looking eye to eye with? Why act like this? I wouldn't accept this kind of puerile venting behaviour from my 7 year old. Get a grip.

Nowhere did you even attempt to address my statement. If you think it is wrong, or wrongheaded, fine. Say why. Insults do nothing.

Don't know why you think I am a racist, but, OK, fine. Don't know if I am one of the most vile racists on the planet yet. Let me work on it, though. Where do you get them bedsheets? Catalogue?

An as long as we're assessing each other's characters, my guess is that an on line shouting bully is in real life a weak disempowered intellectual lightweight who has soiled most of his personal relationships with his intransigence and bile. Or, worse, you are really a decent guy in real life who internalizes his rage and self loathing and channels it into sad little tantrums in front of his computer.

Beats me what purpose is served by it all though.

Posted by: dilettante on March 10, 2009 11:26 AM

Payback is a bitch, ain't it.

The rationale for your views on immigration in a nutshell.

Payback.

Jesus Christ, that a country like America could produce large numbers of people with views like yours is a mystery to me. Wanting, wishing, willing your own country, your own people, to suffer for "historical wrongs".

Of course, you don't view Republican/flyover country/red state/suburban types as being your people, do you? Item: "The original inhabitants, somewhat correctly [love that 'somewhat'! Mealy-mouthed PC press flunky C. White strikes again!- ed.], viewed them as ignorant, pale-faced (racially inferior) [loooove those parentheses! Mealy-mouthed PC media design flunky C. White strikes again! - ed], interlopers with scant understanding of ecological balance and personal hygiene, let alone civilized manners."

Civilized manners like those Aztecs who thoughtfully provided a tangy tomato sauce to go with the hearts they carved out the evening meal and served up to guests...with musical accompaniment!

Oh wait, the descendants of those Aztecs are precisely the people who'll be a good chunk of that quarter of kindergarteners in the rapidly darkening future of your soon-to-be-third-world country. Perhaps they'll continue to have a beneficial effect on your cuisine.

[To the tune of the spoonful of sugar song from the Sound of Music]
Just a dash of tomato makes that ventricle go down
Ventricle go dooow-oown
Ventricle. Go. Down.

And as long as the payback is paid back to them, by their thin brown (racially superior) victims, paid to those big fat interlopers with their big fat bodies and big fat body odour and big fat meals and big fat eco-rapingness and their big fat cars and big fat violence...well, keep it coming. Keep paying them back.

And that way, at long last, right-wing America will suffer their just (low-cal) desserts for all their right-wing sins.

I just wish the people who think like you would be as inadvertantly revealing as you were in that last sentence.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 10, 2009 12:09 PM

Mitch - if I may take a whack at 2 or 3 of your observations:

#1 and #3: In answer to all the points you bring up here: Sure. But what's your point? I agree that "Hispanic" can be a crude and imprecise term, depending on what you're using it for, and often used to obfuscate and throw sand during immigration debates. For example, as any discussion of "Hispanic" immigration into the U.S. expands past say, 20 or 30 comments, the probability that someone will inform us that Argentinians are Europeans goes to 1. This is true, but it's also pretty much irrelevant to the problems (if you even agree they're problems) caused by recent large-scale migration of mainly Mexican and Central American populations into the U.S. But as you do here, the people who with one breath will tell you that you can't speak of "Hispanics" as a monolith, will turn right around and (back to #1) claim that Californios and Tejanos - who've been around since the Fall, who've been Americans from the time the U.S. conquered the land, whose ancestors very likely had no patriotic attachment to the writ of Mexico City, who are not immigrants at all, as a matter of fact - are somehow now the mirror of all these previously elusively diverse "Hispanic" immigrants. (In a similar fashion Cubans are not Guatemalans (true), but Guatemalans are Cubans (when it's convenient for the argument)). I've seen these two contradictory claims placed back to back probably a hundred times, and for the life of me I can't make out what point is being argued.

And Mexico may be "less alien", but it has a culture very distinct from that of the United States. Of course the border region has always had a blending of the two cultures - border regions are like that everywhere. But something else is happening when an anglophone kid in Iowa can no longer attend her neighborhood school because over summer vacation it was designated a Spanish-speaking school, or anglophone parents in Houston are told to stuff it when they demand that their kid be taught in English, not Spanish. (Insert myriad examples of this sort of thing from many states). I don't recall that in the past the process of assimilation involved the natives having to learn the newcomers' languages. Now, you may think this sort of transformation is just peachy and not a problem, and that the U.S. becoming a bilingual and bi-cultural nation is a glorious thing. (I don't - I think Anglo North America has a unique and valuable cultural worth preserving, and that Latinizing it will reduce the vibrancy of the hemisphere. I guess I'm just a sucker for diversity.) But if you want to make that argument you're going to have to abandon the pretense that 2009 is exactly like 1840 or 1900 when it comes to immigration, and that the current influx of Hispanic immigrants is exactly like previous waves.

#2: If anything, they are likely to take less time than other groups to become Americanized.

Are you extrapolating this from your beliefs about Mexican culture, or do you know this for a fact? I've seen studies that are all over the map, and the conclusions depend very much on "whose study" and what is meant by "Americanized". Are recent Mexican immigrants into California being Americanized, or is California being Mexicanized? Is the on-going out-migration of working and middle class whites and blacks from California the result of these people just being ignorant racists who haven't got the message that cultural foundations and continuity are "unAmerican", or are they normal human beings with an existing national culture who prefer not to live in what has become an alien cultural environment? (Are Mexicans who complain about yanquis filling up their towns and "Americanizing" them racists? I sure don't think so.)

#5 is pure romantic nonsense. Even if we assume that there are no meaningful differences - wherever you place the origins of those differences - among people (and that's a faith-based if), "[w]e can make an American out of any raw material the earth affords" only under the specific conditions of vigorous cultural confidence on the part of the host country, conditions (including the geographic and demographic) that impose the sort of "civic boot camp" that forces most members of immigrant groups out of the comfort zone of their ethnic ghettos, and willingness on the part of the immigrants. That last condition varies, the first two no longer exist or exist in impotently attenuated form.

Posted by: Moira Breen on March 10, 2009 12:24 PM

The inevitable Chris White: But WE don't want to do any of those jobs ourselves and certainly don't want OUR kids to do any of the work involved in making these desires reality.

If you and your kids are really such effete, soft-handed little parasites, kemosabe, don't you think that indicates a certain failure of character and paternal responsibility? Nice to see that you and Karl Rove feel the same way about your kids not having to get their hands dirty. I've done plenty of those "jobs Americans won't do" in my time, and *my* kid has been earning money since she was fourteen, doing hard agricultural labor and cleaning hotel rooms, when she's not studying her butt off in the hardest-core classes available. So screw you, whiter man.

You know what I like best about your comments, Chris? That for all your posing as Mr. Progressive, 75% of their content sounds as if it comes straight from corporate propaganda central. You should keep that in mind if you find yourself in want of employment in these tough economic times. Corporations spend millions upon millions vilifying American workers to Congress, and there are signs that they're just going to keep ramping up the slander as times get tougher, as there are still just too many of your countrymen with reasonably well-paid jobs, and the current crop of guest workers working 80 hours a week for low wages just aren't working hard enough and cheap enough to stay competitive in this cratering global economy! Spending your days in a nice clean swipple office, denigrating your countrymen and lauding slave labor conditions for foreigners! Your dream job, in a growth field! Think about it, Chris! But no need to thank me for the suggestion. I think we Americans ought to be sticking together and helping each other out in any way we can in these dark days.

Posted by: Moira Breen on March 10, 2009 1:52 PM

So, I get slapped for "moral preening" with no comment about the Shouting One and some others' generally boorish and personal attacks? What's with that, Michael? I know, I know, life ain't fair.

It is difficult, if not down right impossible, to offer counter arguments to a string of comments by, what did someone call them; Archie Bunkers with hemorrhoids, without slipping from the mythic elevated plane you might wish characterized these exercises. Faced with comments like, " if the blacks are any example, you'd better get a deadbolt for the front door, a big dog and a shotgun and start really hiding your money. or responding to suggestions that I cease soiling [my] diapers in this way makes it hard to avoid resorting to sarcasm or sanctimony.

Speaking of disingenuous, I really enjoyed the semantic tap dance you performed that transformed the wave of European civilians who arrived here when it was still known as the New World, like the Puritans fleeing religious persecution back home, from immigrants to invaders. Don't the natives see all unwanted immigrants as invaders? Isn't that exactly the nature of the complaints raised here about those brown Spanish speakers, that they are invaders? While I give this props for its PoMo use of semiotics it doesn't address the point being made by those of us who recognize American culture as the product of an on-going, dynamic, and ever-in-flux mix of peoples from many different countries, ethnicities, and ancestral cultures.

Do you seriously think that most of those commenting from a tough anti-immigration POV care a whit about the negative impact on blacks that dramatic increases in browns might have? If so, I think you need to seriously review the aggregate of the opinions expressed by said posters.

While it is fine to use poor old Teddy as a whipping boy and pretend that everything was fine and civilized until 1965, this is a serious distortion of historic facts. Being a New Englander I am well aware, for example, of the long and contentious history of the Francophone community here. I suspect a thread focused not on brown skinned Spanish speakers, but on French speakers would reveal a very complex and often ugly past that our Canadian posters would find still resonates in their bi-lingual country.

Perhaps I've gotten tagged for moral preening because of my repeated attempt to suggested practical, doable, everyday actions we can take ourselves to lessen this problem; other than getting guns and big dogs, of course. No one wants to risk upsetting their cozy relationship with the hostess of the trendy restaurant by asking the owner who is busing tables or washing the dishes. No one wants to pay a few bucks more for American made shoes. In short, I'm the sort of prig, puritan, and preening moralist who points out that we need to solve problems through our own actions, not simply complain about the elites and make scapegoats of the immigrants.

Posted by: Chris White on March 10, 2009 2:45 PM

Oh dear. Mr White, I can't believe that you're using the fate of Native Americans to help you make your case in favour of immigration - which is, in effect, what you're doing. (I mean, how's it working out for them, hey?) I can't help but think that you know very well that this kind of mass immigration is bad for many Americans, but that you enjoy the possibility that they'll suffer "payback" for their own ancestors' invasive arrival in the US. That's an atrocious suggestion, and you deserve to be called on it.

The motives of some commenters (racism, insularity, etc.) regarding immigration are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether the flood of immigrants from Mexico is good for the United States or not. That's an ad hominem argument, and a foolish one when the stakes are so high.

To use an example that may resonate better with you: does the fact that some people stand to make a packet from various anti-global warming schemes, and that some (Al Gore) appear to be hypocrites, mean that efforts to control global warming ought to be abandoned, or that global warming itself is a fraud? (I'm a bit of a global warming sceptic myself, but I expect that you are not.)

I sometimes agree with your comments, unlike most of your other critics in this thread, but on this occasion I think their suggestion that you enjoy your righteous anger too much to give it up, even when you suspect that your opponents may be right, is correct.

Posted by: aliasclio on March 10, 2009 5:02 PM

I agree that CW's "payback" comment was reprehensible, but I find it interesting that one of the very few times he lurches into frustrated attacks, he's immediately taken to task for it, while the rest of the usual boors, led by ST, continue bleating away with nary a word against them. I realize it all comes down to whoever you happen to agree with, but still, it's annoying.

Posted by: JV on March 10, 2009 5:50 PM

"Payback is a bitch, ain't it."

Yes it is....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_re_us/twin_cities_somalis

Am I allowed to oppose immigration so that I don't get killed by a car bomb?

Posted by: anon on March 10, 2009 6:03 PM

Not all Hispanic immigrants are from Mexico. Most are entering the country through Mexico but are from Bolivia, Peru, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Brazil(-His) etc..

If I entered France by way of the Italian border, does that make me Italian?

fun fact: Some of the most violent immigrants come from a South American country by the name of.... El Salvador. These gang members come from the most vicious gang this country has ever seen MS__ .

bonus points for the name of the senator who invited MS folk over .

Posted by: chic noir on March 10, 2009 6:50 PM

JV is Chris's comment any different from those who are hoping that Obama fails?

Posted by: chic noir on March 10, 2009 6:52 PM

Do you seriously think that most of those commenting from a tough anti-immigration POV care a whit about the negative impact on blacks that dramatic increases in browns might have?

Steve Sailer has written about this very thing, yet no one listens to Steve because we all know he is a racist.

Left wing people are all about trying to change human nature, right wing people are trying to build societies around it.

Posted by: slumlord on March 10, 2009 7:32 PM

JV, I'm sure I speak for others when I say that I've long since given up either remonstrating or reasoning with Shoutin' T. My silence doesn't indicate that I agree with the man's views, or esp. the language in which he expresses them - although, of course, every now and then I do.

To his credit, ST doesn't really present his opinions as arguments; they are simply expressions of his feelings about those issues which he chooses to discuss. Chris White, on the other hand, does attempt to present his own highly emotion-charged views in the form of an argument, thus opening himself to the irritation of readers here, who sense that he is being disingenuous - to use his own word - about the way in which he arrives at his point-of-view.

I've occasionally suspected in the past that he enjoys the sensation of being "holier than you all" more than he really approves or disapproves of a particular policy, but this is the first time I've seen such striking proof of it.

I mean, I'm certain he's right and that some commenters on immigration here are moved as much by racism as by a considered view of what is good for the US, but so what? They deserve to be punished for it by being flooded with illegal newcomers even if it destroys the country? I'm equally certain that, as he says, gov't policy, the attitudes of consumers who want cheap goods, and employers who want cheap labour, have helped to make the present situation possible, but again so what? The way to right these wrongs is not to turn a blind eye to yet more illegal immigrants. It's hard not to suspect that he's arguing in bad faith when he tacitly supports this approach to the problem.

p.s. I don't know if you're aware, Chris, that the people of Quebec are very insistent about their right to control immigration to their province - because they want to ensure that the French language is protected. They know, as Americans apparently don't yet, that the language of your immigrants is likely to become the language of your future.

Posted by: aliasclio on March 10, 2009 7:42 PM

chic, if he means it, it's no different. But from reading his comments over the past few years, I've grown to respect CW's thoughtfulness when stating his opinions and so chalk up his remark to frustration.

Posted by: JV on March 10, 2009 8:00 PM

fun fact: Some of the most violent immigrants come from a South American country by the name of.... El Salvador. These gang members come from the most vicious gang this country has ever seen MS__ .

Looks like they're going to get a run for their money:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h97yJpC0D0M7j_Gc_wOVznqwNtswD968B3F80

Payback will be a bitch, Chris! More dead cops, who cares, right? Yay, diversity!

Posted by: anonymous on March 10, 2009 8:03 PM

clio, CW is usually one of the few offering up any real, and more importantly, immediate solutions to such problems as illegal immigration. From what I can tell from the vast majority of his comments on the subject, he recognizes that there is a problem and is in favor of things like tightening up the borders and prosecuting business owners who employ illegals. But he realizes that those things are up to our financial and political elite to enact, and so he consistently offers up ideas that individuals can undertake; very sensible ideas, IMO. And yet he's just as consistently bashed for it because things like buying produce from a CSA sounds like something a damn dirty hippie would do.

His tone can get sanctimonious at times, I guess (I personally don't find it so, not counting the payback comment), but the substance is there.

Counter that with rants against the "elites" and/or whatever minority group were discussing, sans any real solutions, that make up most of the rest of the comments on such subjects. I'll take CW's style any day.

Posted by: JV on March 10, 2009 8:32 PM

JV, correct me if I'm wrong, but CW's solution to the problem of massive immigration appears to amount to little more than telling people to "buy local" (esp. produce and other foodstuffs), and "don't buy so much".

I doubt that these gestures will make much difference. It isn't the well-off middle-class that is driving up the demand for cheaper produce and meat, it's those who are a little lower down on the social scale. Arresting or fining those who hire illegal immigrants for cheap labour might work better, but it's not really enough either. As long as there are people desperate to work for a pittance, there will be employers who find a way to take advantage of this fact. Better not to allow them in, in the first place, than to try to prevent them from being hired, or working, once they've arrived.

(A semi-related corollary: I would really prefer to buy clothes manufactured in Canada or the US, or somewhere where I can be certain that labour laws protect their makers. Since it's very difficult to find any clothing here that isn't made in China, I end up caving in and buying the Chinese-made goods. That's why a change in the laws that have flooded us with this stuff might be better than a personal boycott against it, which no one is likely to notice except me.)

As for your complaints against those who blame the "elites", I think you're missing the point. The elites are at fault not because they're the only ones who benefit from illegal immigration (although they probably benefit more than most other Americans, at least in the long term), but because they have a tendency to shout down every attempt to address the problem with cries of "racism" and "xenophobia" and so forth.

Posted by: aliasclio on March 10, 2009 9:28 PM

aliasclio – Your comments, including arguments you have with mine, generally do respond to the points I actually make. In this case you seem willing to accept the off-kilter views of my position put forth by the likes of His Shoutingness.

Review this thread and others in the archives on immigration. The opinions I've expressed are: (1) there should be tighter border control; (2) there should be much harsher penalties for employers who hire, then exploit immigrants, both legal and illegal; (3) immigrants are fellow humans trying to do the best they can for their families and deserve compassion, not vilification; (4) elites are the problem, not the solution, and, most importantly; (5) if we want to change things, we have more influence as consumers than we do as voters.

I am consistently baffled that a bunch of posters who often seem one new outrage shy of setting up guillotines on Wall Street and in front of the Capitol keep talking about solving the problem with stricter laws, better enforced through tighter border control. Which is fine and dandy, they're points I've repeatedly agreed with and expressed myself, but how has that been working out so far? The problem I see is that these ideas require top down governmental actions.

Given another point most here apparently agree with, that the political duopoly serves the interests of the oligarchy not those of the average citizen, I'm suggesting we look for actions we can actually make rather than simply complaining about what they do to us. Since I see most immigrants as fellow victims of the same oligarchs who are screwing me and mine over, a vigilante solution doesn't appeal to me. That only embraces all the negatives we fear and heads us toward becoming more like Mexico, not more authentically American. And it still serves the interests of the oligarchs.

Use the tools and power we have to encourage the changes we want to see. I buy as much as I practically can locally. Whatever ST might claim, I don't make myself a martyr to the cause of localism. If the shirts are all from SE Asia but I still need a shirt, I buy a shirt.

My points can be dismissed as SWPL. Is that really a valid counterargument?

For the record, I've done, and still do, plenty of jobs considered blue collar. I've gotten dirty and bloody for a buck as have most of my family and friends. From evidence offered in comments here the Shouting One has lived a far more genteel white-collar existence than I have. That he repeatedly impugns my character and makes off the mark assumptions about my life pushes my buttons and gets my dander up, which may well be his intent. So, sometimes I sling one back.

There does, however, seem to be a clear double standard when it comes to reaction to the use of hyperbole, snarkiness, and invectives. Attempting to craft comments that avoid simply attacking those with whom I disagree makes me prissy. Detailing those things I do to support change makes me a martyr. Suggesting courses of action others might consider taking makes me a puritan. Letting an ill-considered zinger slip out makes me reprehensible.

What do direct personal attacks like this most recent riff; "They can make the despicable choice that Chris White has made: to become a kiss ass for every sissified liberal cause." by His Shoutingness get?

"Oh, that card Tommy, gotta love his cranky style."

Posted by: Chris White on March 11, 2009 1:17 AM

I am consistently baffled that a bunch of posters who often seem one new outrage shy of setting up guillotines on Wall Street and in front of the Capitol keep talking about solving the problem with stricter laws, better enforced through tighter border control. [...] The problem I see is that these ideas require top down governmental actions.

You aren't showing much subtlety on this point. Everyone but an ultra-libertarian wacko agrees that state power is more appropriate and effective in some areas than others. There's no hypocrisy in believing that government should have full control of the nation's air force and food labeling standards but not of the health care system.

Posted by: blue anonymous on March 11, 2009 4:40 AM

All right, Chris, I expect I have done you an injustice. Your position sounds reasonable in the last comment you wrote here. But I did read your previous comments on this thread quite carefully, I thought (I haven't yet done so again), and I couldn't detect much of the position you set out so clearly above. You appeared to be far more concerned with attacking the motives of the other commenters than stating what you think is wrong with current immigration laws in your country. I haven't read your other comments on the subject in other posts because I usually avoid those posts' comments. I don't much like their tone myself, and I fear it plays into the hands of the "oligarchs" who love to pronounce that all those who would restrict immigration are racists, etc.

You do appear to have misunderstood what I said about ST. It's not that I think he's a lovable crank, exactly. It's that his invective is clearly invective, so I don't take it seriously. When you, however, make comments about payback, it sounds as if you mean them - partly because the concept fits so neatly with your anger towards American insularity and racism.

Posted by: aliasclio on March 11, 2009 10:36 AM

No one made you drop the mask/let the cat out of the bag/show your true colours with that "Payback is a bitch" comment, Chris. In defence of you, JV has described it as "reprehensible" and ascribes it to your being "frustrated".

So, what is Chris? Were you frustrated? Do you think the comment was reprehensible? Or did you compose the comment in a state of mental clarity and with intent? I think you did, JV's defence of you notwithstanding. So, blame it on ST and repudiate the comment. Or don't repudiate it...but that means you can't blame it on the Shouter, can you?

Either way, you wrote that sentence and hit the Post button. Time to man up, Chris. Take responsibility. Are you repudiating it now? Or do you stand by it?

Posted by: PatrickH on March 11, 2009 12:52 PM

Was I frustrated? Absolutely! The bitching, moaning, ad hominem attacks, and scapegoating of fellow victims based on their ethnicity seem to me ineffective and often, given the invectives, slurs and epithets used, (dare I say it?) reprehensible.

Do I stand behind the comment "payback is a bitch"? That is somewhat more difficult to answer. Seemingly it has been interpreted to mean that I support or encourage the worst effects of unchecked immigration, which is not at all how I meant it. It was meant to be a cautious reminder, to use another cliché, "that what goes around, comes around." Or to use an Allen Toussaint lyric, "The same people that you must use on your way up/You might meet up/on your way down."

As the US was undergoing rapid population growth and expansion we (our ancestors that is) took over vast portions of the continent. In doing so we treated the inhabitants already there, the ancestors of today's immigrants, in ways not designed to build friendship and trust. The default attitude of the American majority toward most non-white, heck, non-northern European, heck, non-Anglo, immigrants was that they were at least somewhat inferior and their assimilation was, at best, conditional and limited to second class status.

Our relationship with the countries of origin of the wave of Hispanic immigrants also needs to be kept in mind as we discuss the immigration issue. How many regimes of corrupt oligarchies have been installed after direct invasion or through proxy coups then supported by the US in Central and South America over the last century? Let's see there's Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico, Chile ... am I forgetting any? This history, much of it within the lifetimes of many of those same immigrants, is crucial to understanding the dynamics of today.

So is the simple truth that demographics are destiny. When falling birthrates among white Americans meet up with rising populations of various other ethnic and cultural groups there are few means to avoid the inevitable. We could breed our way out of the situation. We could consider eugenics or partial genocide. We could recreate the Iron Curtain over here with the goal of keeping folk out rather than in. We could retreat to gated communities protected by vigilantes. To be honest, none of these particularly appeal to me.

So I suggest we devote our energies toward celebrating and nurturing our own culture. One way we can do that is to redirect our personal cash flows to shrink the amount of funds flowing to the oligarchs, here and abroad. And I'd love to learn what other constructive, proactive, suggestions anyone else has to offer. So far, such suggestions seem to be in mighty short supply.

Posted by: Chris White on March 11, 2009 3:47 PM

Posted by Chris White at March 11, 2009

"Do I stand behind the comment "payback is a bitch"? That is somewhat more difficult to answer."

I'll bet it is. And you failed to answer because you don't have one, despite the obfuscating commentary you left as you tried to bullshit your way around it.

Posted by: anon on March 11, 2009 6:55 PM

if we want to change things, we have more influence as consumers than we do as voters.

I think this is false. It's like saying it's possible to win a war by boycotting the enemies grocery stores instead of voting to fund an army. Controlling the border is a classic public good, requiring mandated contributions by all and enforcement by a public authority. Attempts to provide public goods through individual voluntary actions (like shopping) inevitably fail because of the collective action problem. It's sheer sentimentality to pretend otherwise.

Posted by: MQ on March 12, 2009 9:53 PM

It's like saying it's possible to win a war by boycotting the enemies grocery stores instead of voting to fund an army.

Not that I buy the underlying presumption that we are in a war with our various neighbors to the south, but in wars one does not usually vote to fund an army to defend against some perceived enemy while also remaining the largest consumer of goods produced and exported by them.

Nowhere have I suggested being in favor of totally open borders. What I have suggested is that when our collective actions as consumers are in conflict with what we claim we want through our votes our buying power will dominate the results we see.

Posted by: Chris White on March 13, 2009 6:52 AM

MQ used an analogy involving war to make a point about public goods. He didn't suggest we are at war with anyone. COnsider a look at the classic "Tragedy of the commons" paper from Science, or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

As for our military outlays - for all I know they could stand to be cut by 25% or more, and my instincts do run that way, but I lack the knowledge to have a serious opinion. That's not my point, though. My point is that if we cut our military down enough, the rest of the world would have to spend to protect itself from Russia and China (which might push various countries around, without necessarily conquering them). Thus, although the EU and Japan may give more money to the poor countries, we effectively give rather large amounts of money to the EU and Japan, thus freeing up disposable revenue for them to donate abroad.

I also wonder if your figures account for private giving from the US vs that from Japan etc?

I'm not saying the US is necessarily head-n-shoulders the greatest country ever to exist (though I think it is a pretty good one). I've taken a course on the often heavy-handed interventions in Latin America that I think you mentioned. Yes, that was largely some *&^%&^% up stuff. But I think the anti-communist context for many of those actions have to be borne in mind. We wouldn't be quite so worried about those things had they been done on an anti-Nazi basis, would we? Ask yourself, then, if Stalin was really that much lovelier than the Nazis, and how exactly American leaders in say the 60s were supposed to know that there was not going to be another Stalin. Does that justify Vietnam or Nicaragua? I don't know for sure, but that certainly seems like the indispensable context in which to inquire - it just doesn't make sense to just look at the Nicaraguan Contras acontextually.

Posted by: blue anonymous on March 13, 2009 11:51 AM

While I recognize that MQ was using an analogy, since there are numerous references in the thread to the US and its culture being under attack by invading immigrants I saw no reason not to continue to use it myself.

Posted by: Chris White on March 13, 2009 12:56 PM

throwing around "Xenophobe" and "racist" = crutches for people unwilling and/or unable to defend their ideas.

modern white people = only people in human history naive and/or stupid enough to believe that reducing the majority race of a country from 90% of the population to a minority in the span of 70 years is a good thing for that country.

all races are the same save for skin color = indication of insanity and ignorance of world cultures.

white explanation for why certain groups, e.g. Bushmen of Africa, are Stone Age savages = "It's just due to culture." Apparently the Bushmen and other groups got to the culture basket last, or the Culture Fairy didn't sprinkle enough culture dust on them.

Naive and/or stupid whites trying desperately to explain away the unblinking reality that whites have made contriubutions to humanity without rival (technology, medicine, music, politics, human rights, etc. etc.) = pure hilarity.

Posted by: jim jones on March 17, 2009 4:18 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?