Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Racism then and now
One problem is the fact that we have gone from blatant bigotry to more subtle forms of racism. "I have nothing against Mexicans, but why can't they learn our language like immigrants of the past used to when the came over. And, of course, a lot of them are here illegally." That isn't exactly calling them "spicks" like kids of my playground used to, but the racism is still there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
Thinking people should make efforts to conform to the culture they are joining is not racism.
Nor is expecting people to obey immigration laws, for that matter.
What a bunch of gringos.
I was taught in school that one of America's strengths is that we have immigrants bring their culture with them.
Besides, the grandchildren of immigrants become so thoroughly Americanized it's pretty moot anyhow.
Considering that 99.9 (full disclosure: made up statistic) percent of the migrants from Latin America are Christian, I fail to understand why they are not welcomed (indeed, encouraged) by American evangelicals who are worried about the rise of the "nones" in this country. Wouldn't they help reverse the trend?
I was taught in school that one of America's strengths is that we have immigrants bring their culture with them.
Whether that's true or not, it is still not racist to want greater assimilation.
Wouldn't they help reverse the trend?
Evangelicals are largely conservative and (correctly) view Democratic policies as opposed to evangelical Christianity on many fronts. Hispanic voters are as reliably Democratic as religious "nones", so politically Hispanic Christians are hostile to the beliefs and hopes of conservative Christians.
I am enough self-reflective to want to know if my positions on issues are in fact racist. The suggestion is that requiring or even encouraging English competency for immigrants displays racist motivation. It seems like you could think it a good idea without the racist motivation. You could also impose an English language requirement for the purpose of limiting an ethnic group. However, language is distinct from ethnicity. The linkage can be statistically established, but that does not cement the motivation. The same distinctions can be made regarding legal immigration. You could insist on legal immigration, knowing its difficulties (sometimes impossibilities). Or you could say that we have a system in place that we should follow until we get something better. There remains a path to support restricting immigration without being racist.
I am enough self-reflective to want to know if my positions on issues are in fact racist.
I have observed (and in a couple cases had it admitted) that among the political left, outcome is often indistinguishable from motivation. Someone who opposes the idea of illegal immigration is thinking entirely from a legal perspective, but because his solution is, in the context of the United States, similar to a solution a racist might offer, then the left seems to consider both equally racist. Even though one of them clearly is not.
Starhopper said...
Considering that 99.9 (full disclosure: made up statistic) percent of the migrants from Latin America are Christian, I fail to understand why they are not welcomed (indeed, encouraged) by American evangelicals who are worried about the rise of the "nones" in this country. Wouldn't they help reverse the trend?
They're Catholic. From what I understand of evangelicals, that a kind of pseudo-Christian; probably the same way you would look at Mormons or the JWs.
Legion of Logic said...
Evangelicals are largely conservative and (correctly) view Democratic policies as opposed to evangelical Christianity on many fronts. Hispanic voters are as reliably Democratic as religious "nones", so politically Hispanic Christians are hostile to the beliefs and hopes of conservative Christians.
Hispanic voters are largely anti-abortion and firm believers in working and not taking welfare or other forms of assistance. What are these conservative beliefs and hopes you think they are opposed to? Why aren't more of them Republicans?
Legion of Logic said...
I have observed (and in a couple cases had it admitted) that among the political left, outcome is often indistinguishable from motivation. Someone who opposes the idea of illegal immigration is thinking entirely from a legal perspective, but because his solution is, in the context of the United States, similar to a solution a racist might offer, then the left seems to consider both equally racist. Even though one of them clearly is not.
Much like when you cause the death of another person, even when it is not intentional, it is still a crime.
Hispanic voters are largely anti-abortion
And they largely vote for the party that is increasingly supportive of removing restrictions on even third trimester abortions (as in, fully viable babies) and wants to purge pro-life members from its ranks.
Much like when you cause the death of another person, even when it is not intentional, it is still a crime.
Unintentional death is not not considered murder and is not punished to the same extent. If someone accidentally killed someone else and half the country was calling him a murderer, then that half of the country would be wrong.
And they largely vote for the party that is increasingly supportive of removing restrictions on even third trimester abortions (as in, fully viable babies) and wants to purge pro-life members from its ranks.
Ever wonder why they want no restrictions?
This is why.
Wanting people of every race to speak the same language = racism?
Nope. Victor either isn't very smart or he's trolling people.
Legion of Logic said...
And they largely vote for the party that is increasingly supportive of removing restrictions on even third trimester abortions (as in, fully viable babies) and wants to purge pro-life members from its ranks.
Why do you think that is?
Unintentional death is not not considered murder and is not punished to the same extent.
Nor is unintentional racism condemned to the same extent.
"Why do you think that is?"
It's possible that they are not single issue voters, and look at the aggregate positions of the 2 parties and vote for the one that most closely aligns with their interests, rather than ignoring every issue other than just one.
Why do you think that is?
Reasons irrelevant to the topic. Being pro-life means nothing if you vote Democrat. Politically they are identical to Planned Parenthood activists.
Nor is unintentional racism condemned to the same extent.
Unintentional racism is also not what is being discussed, but rather false accusations of racism such as what Victor gave as examples in the OP.
1) One-issue voting on abortion means that you are prepared to subordinate everything, including gun control, climate change, universal health care, and now, most importantly, family separations, election security and Presidential accountability to the issue of abortion. Large portions of America believe, quite honestly, that fetuses should not have the same protections as infants. Maybe they are wrong, but using force to keep them from acting on what they believe is an enterprise that isn't going to work. We are not a Catholic country like Poland. Shoving the pro-life position down people's throats when they, in their hearts, don't believe in it is at best a stopgap measure, and one that may cause more people to support abortion. When Roe was decided, a woman could get FIRED FROM HER JOB if she carried a pregnancy to term. And it was not the pro-life Republicans who outlawed that, it was the pro-choice Democrats. I think better health care, and better support for people facing the problem of raising a child under difficult circumstances will save far more fetuses than overturning Roe v. Wade.
It's possible that they are not single issue voters, and look at the aggregate positions of the 2 parties and vote for the one that most closely aligns with their interests, rather than ignoring every issue other than just one.
...
Reasons irrelevant to the topic. Being pro-life means nothing if you vote Democrat. Politically they are identical to Planned Parenthood activists.
How curiously unreflective. So, what are the interests that so closely align with the Democratic party, and are more important than saving the lives of the unborn? If you want to seriously discuss political motivations, it helps to be serious about reasoning.
Unintentional racism is also not what is being discussed, but rather false accusations of racism such as what Victor gave as examples in the OP.
I didn't see any false accusations in the original post.
Second, what I was presenting in the OP was people who presuppose that someone doesn't know English because they are Hispanic and poor, and speak Spanish in public, and people who prejudge people's legal status, or support racial profiling to get people deported. Historically, language learning amongst immigrant communities takes place more in the second generation than in the first, and what I have seen in the Hispanic community in Arizona, this is the case here.
Linguistically, Victor has a point. My paternal grandmother never spoke a word of English in her life, and she lived most of it in Scranton, PA. My maternal grandfather spoke his native Polish far better than English, yet he still ended up being the mayor of Wilkes-Barre, PA. So did my maternal grandmother, who made the best danged pierogi this side of the Atlantic. (She served out my grandfather's term, when he died in office.)
"So, what are the interests that so closely align with the Democratic party, and are more important than saving the lives of the unborn?"
It's not one single issue, but rather an aggregate of all issues. If Candidate A agrees with you on the issue of abortion, yet is completely opposed to your stands on health care, the economy, immigration, guns, foreign policy, the environment, and anything else you can think of, while Candidate B disagrees with you on abortion, yet holds identical positions to you on every other issue, which one are you supposed to vote for?
Serious question. We're faced with such choices all the time.
How curiously unreflective. So, what are the interests that so closely align with the Democratic party, and are more important than saving the lives of the unborn? If you want to seriously discuss political motivations, it helps to be serious about reasoning.
I seriously do not understand how this is relevant. The point I brought up, in response to why evangelicals aren't eager for immigrants who are largely Christian, is that evangelicals are not going to be eager for immigrants who are largely going to vote Democratic. WHY they vote Democratic is irrelevant to the fact that they do. You brought up abortion, to which I responded that their pro-life beliefs are meaningless when they vote for Democrats who want zero restrictions on, and taxpayer funding for, killing the unborn. So again, why would evangelicals welcome immigrants who are going to take the country away from their values?
I didn't see any false accusations in the original post.
Then you either didn't read it or you drank the same kool-aid that makes so many progressives see racism under every rock.
One-issue voting on abortion
Again, this was all in response to why evangelicals are not eager to bring in Christian immigrants. It is because these Christian immigrants vote for Democrats, which is not exactly the preferred party of evangelicals.
It's not about one-issue voters.
Second, what I was presenting in the OP was people who presuppose that someone doesn't know English because they are Hispanic and poor, and speak Spanish in public, and people who prejudge people's legal status, or support racial profiling to get people deported.
Qualifiers do change things.
Victor,
1) One-issue voting on abortion means that you are prepared to subordinate everything, including gun control, climate change, universal health care, and now, most importantly, family separations, election security and Presidential accountability to the issue of abortion.
Seems that Evangelicals are not one-issue voters then doesn't it since they don't like the Democrat party positions on the first 3 issues. I never heard of anyone supporting family separations nor opposing election security and Presidential accountability.
Large portions of America believe, quite honestly, that fetuses should not have the same protections as infants. Maybe they are wrong, but using force to keep them from acting on what they believe is an enterprise that isn't going to work. We are not a Catholic country like Poland. Shoving the pro-life position down people's throats when they, in their hearts, don't believe in it is at best a stopgap measure, and one that may cause more people to support abortion.
Right, and large portions of America believe that they have the right to own a gun for explicitly American Constitutional reasons. But you support unlimited abortion (although no Christian denomination supported abortion at all until 1960) while also supporting laws against gun ownership. I wonder if you are not even bothered by your inconsistency.
When Roe was decided, a woman could get FIRED FROM HER JOB if she carried a pregnancy to term. And it was not the pro-life Republicans who outlawed that, it was the pro-choice Democrats.
The bill was passed by both parties.
I think better health care, and better support for people facing the problem of raising a child under difficult circumstances will save far more fetuses than overturning Roe v. Wade.
It's apparent you don't think "fetuses" are worth saving from this statement, other than for political expediency. I'm sorry your "Christian" denomination "progressed" so far as to be indistinguishable from pagans in this respect.
I don't want to get sidetracked on abortion specifically. I think it is very important for people on the left side of the aisle to understand that not everything is racist or sexist or some other -ist or phobia. Someone can oppose illegal immigration and be the least racist person alive.
"Someone can oppose illegal immigration and be the least racist person alive."
I do not see how that is possible. But it seems that people of all political persuasions are quite capable of holding contradictory ideas in their minds without their heads exploding.
I do not see how that is possible.
For the same reason that opposition to any other civil or criminal violation isn't racist. It is not contingent on race, ergo it is not racist.
"opposition to any other civil or criminal violation isn't racist"
Perhaps in an ideal (i.e., not real) world, that might be the case. But sadly not in ours. Race intrudes into all law enforcement. If nothing else, we should all have learned this from the Black Lives Matter movement.
There is such a thing as "driving while black" for instance. And our incarceration rates are blatantly racist.
As for our southern border, while Legion may very well be free of the rcist poison, there can be little doubt that those in favor of caging children and allowing migrants to die of thirst in the desert are stone cold racists. Thought experiment: If the country to our immediate south was Norway, do you think there would be any support for building a wall along the border? Would little Norwegian kids be sleeping on concrete without access to toothbrushes or soap? I think not.
And as long as such even notional differences exist, then our policy toward migrants from Latin America is fundamentally racist, even if the people who support it are not.
And Legion, your comment above about evangelicals being resistant to Catholic Hispanics moving to the US because they might tend to vote Democratic betrays a preference for politics over religion. Why would they imagine that a person's political leanings are more important than his faith? Ought not the reverse be the case?
Why would they imagine that a person's political leanings are more important than his faith? Ought not the reverse be the case?
Conflation of politics and Christianity is a huge problem among conservative Christians. It's also a problem on the left, of course, but that's a different topic.
And yes, race does get injected into many political subjects or policies. But I believe we should be careful to not assume bigotry automatically. These days that is a very damaging label, so it should not be casually applied.
Is "Racism" necessarily bigotry? We get into such questions when discussing affirmative action or reparations. Do we have a word for benign recognition of race? Perhaps "diversity"? (But that word has its own problems.)
There have been many more border walls built across the world since the 9/11 attacks than have been in place since WW1.
Reasonable people would reach the conclusion that there was an increased concern with national security.
It's too bad the left sees racism as the cause of every evil in the world and the root of all problems while ignoring other possible causes of evil. People get tired of falsely being called "racist" and so stop paying attention to them. Like the boy who cried wolf.
Is "Racism" necessarily bigotry? We get into such questions when discussing affirmative action or reparations. Do we have a word for benign recognition of race? Perhaps "diversity"? (But that word has its own problems.)
I've noticed that if you are of the left and notice racial differences you "favor diversity". If you are of the right and notice racial differences you are a "bigot".
In this political climate it's apparent that we can't discuss racial differences reasonably.
Immigration/migration/refugees ought not be a political issue at all, and certainly should not have anything to do with race. It is at rock bottom an economic and environmental issue. Sadly, some people make it a race issue (for instance, by favoring Norwegians over people from "shithole" countries). But the root causes of the global uptick in migration are lack of economic opportunities at home and climate change. These are often masked by secondary effects (such as the Syrian civil war or Central American gangs). Those secondary effects would largely disappear if the underlying factors of economics and climate change were dealt with.
If the US government were serious (it isn't) about immigration, we would sponsor a Marshall Plan scale redevelopment of Central America so that families could support themselves right where they are and young men would have an alternative to joining a gang to feel worthwhile. We would also begin a Manhattan Project sized effort to prevent and/or alleviate climate change, which if you think global migration is bad now, just wait a few years when hundreds of millions of persons are displaced as their present homelands become quite literally uninhabitable. The migration issue we are dealing with today will seem like nothing!
But trying to solve the problem by building a wall or otherwise policing the border is like dealing with an automobile accident after it's occurred rather than driving safely to begin with so it doesn't happen in the first place.
Sadly, some people make it a race issue (for instance, by favoring Norwegians over people from "shithole" countries).
While I'm sure some people think that way, don't you think it's easier for people to assimilate if they come from a similar, in this case European, culture? Or do you think we shouldn't want people in our country to share a common culture?
I agree that people want to come to the US because they want a better life than they could have in their own country. But I doubt that the US government would be successful in any "redevelopment" effort no matter how much money we spent. They would have to actually change their national culture and root out corruption themselves. If the US tried to impose in their internal affairs, they would resent our meddling (which they already do).
It also works in those corrupt regimes' favor to absorb their dissatisfied citizens into the US who then are not only in the country to work for political change, but send money back into the corrupt country. So we're not helping those countries change by allowing unlimited numbers of their citizens into the US.
"[D]on't you think it's easier for people to assimilate if they come from a similar, in this case European, culture?"
Well, 2 points to that:
1. Hispanics do come from a European culture. Or do you think Spain is not part of Europe?
2. Many of my neighbors are from India or Korea, and they seem to be assimilating quite nicely. My dentist is from Nigeria, and he's a valuable member of our community.
3. (Bonus Point) Our current administration rivals any "third world" country as far as corruption, nepotism, manipulated elections, and tribalistic favoritism are concerned. We're not in any position to lecture anyone about their shortcomings until we clean up our own.
Starhopper,
Yes, our neighbors to the south have a derived European culture and so should have fewer problems assimilating than those from Asian or African countries. Of course skilled and educated people from any country, like you dentist, will have less difficulty assimilating. I work with skilled and educated people from all over the world and they get along fine here (although they very visibily socialize primarily with people from their own country)
But you didn't answer if you thought it was a good thing for immigrants to assimilate at all. When you went to school, they taught you that America was a "melting pot". They don't teach that any more.
Oh, I think assimilation is mandatory. But that said, I think as much as possible of one's heritage ought to be preserved down the generations. There's nothing wrong with Italian Americans making the best pasta sauces, Ghanaian Americans the best Jollof rice, Irish Americans the best music, Greek Americans running the best diners, or Polish Americans (like myself) making the best Catholics.
Well at least you guys make great Kielbasa:-)
At my job tonight I had a Polish-built Rexroth motor break. I am holding Starhopper personally responsible for the actions of his people.
Legion of Logic said...
I don't want to get sidetracked on abortion specifically. I think it is very important for people on the left side of the aisle to understand that not everything is racist or sexist or some other -ist or phobia. Someone can oppose illegal immigration and be the least racist person alive.
It's also very important to get the people on the right side of the aisle to recognize that the racism/sexism that comes baked into our culture, our language, and our media and is so infused in our thinking that you don't need to hate other people to have racist/sexist positions.
bmiller said...
I've noticed that if you are of the left and notice racial differences you "favor diversity". If you are of the right and notice racial differences you are a "bigot".
I hear of people on the left being called out for racism on a a regular basis. Also, there is also a difference between noticing for the purpose of helping the more oppressed and noticing for the purpose of blaming the oppressed for the oppression.
It's also very important to get the people on the right side of the aisle to recognize that the racism/sexism that comes baked into our culture, our language, and our media and is so infused in our thinking that you don't need to hate other people to have racist/sexist positions.
Such as?
As for unconscious sexism, off the top of my head I can think of our tendency to comment on a woman's clothing or her looks, even when they are totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, while we almost never do that for a man.
I mentioned above the phenomenon of "driving while black" where an African American is far likelier to be pulled over for the most minor of infractions (such as a tail light being out) while the cops largely ignore such when the driver is white.
I realize this anecdote is 50 years old, but when I worked at Circle K in the early 70s, my boss would always tell me to "Keep an eye" on any black customer, while he never worried about white people. The irony is that our store was robbed (at gunpoint) only once - by two white kids.
Starhopper,
As for unconscious sexism, off the top of my head I can think of our tendency to comment on a woman's clothing or her looks, even when they are totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, while we almost never do that for a man.
Complementing a woman used to be considered proper etiquette. Now it's a law suit.
But I'll give you complement so you won't feel bad. You look good for an old man.
As for unconscious sexism, off the top of my head I can think of our tendency to comment on a woman's clothing or her looks, even when they are totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, while we almost never do that for a man.
Yes, that would be an example of sexism, even if unintentional. Treating people differently based upon a demographic checkbox is inherently biased.
Those are quite different than opposing illegal entry into the country or desiring immigrants to conform to the culture they are joining, neither of which is racist in any way without adding qualifiers to change the situation, which is what I am trying to get One Brow to understand.
bmiller said...
Complementing a woman used to be considered proper etiquette. Now it's a law suit.
IF a woman is making a presentation about the proper protocols for the prevention of sepsis and how we are using natural language processing to evaluate medical records in the pursuit of such, saying "nice dress" afterwards is not a compliment, much like saying to a man "nice shirt" would not be a compliment.
Legion of Logic said...
Those are quite different than opposing illegal entry into the country or desiring immigrants to conform to the culture they are joining, neither of which is racist in any way without adding qualifiers to change the situation, which is what I am trying to get One Brow to understand.
Since we have agreed that unconscious sexism (and presumably racism) exist, perhaps we can also agree that they may alter our positions on other political issues, like the treatment of people seeking asylum at the border, or those entering illegally?
I'm not often in agreement with One Brow, but in this case I believe we're thinking alike. Going back to my "thought experiment" above:
If the country to our immediate south was Norway, do you think there would be any support for building a wall along the border? Would little Norwegian kids be sleeping on concrete without access to toothbrushes or soap? I think not.
Now it may not be "racism" to make such a distinction between groups of people, but I know of no word like "culture-ism" with which to replace it.
The Siegfried Line and Maginot Line were built to deter invasions from other countries.
Were the French racist against the Germans and Germans racist against the French?
Open border globalists aren't worried so much about racism. They just want the destruction of nation states and will use any rhetorical means necessary to achieve their ends no matter how dishonest.
Bad example, bmiller. The Germans (of that time) were racist against EVERYBODY!
"Master Race", anyone?
perhaps we can also agree that they may alter our positions on other political issues, like the treatment of people seeking asylum at the border, or those entering illegally?
We do agree on that. Where we differ is you and Starhopper seem to automatically assume bigotry of some sort at the heart of it, while I understand that opposition to illegal immigration is not contingent upon race, which means I require additional (actual) evidence that bigotry is involved.
It just seems like a lazy way of dismissing opinions other than yours while also claiming moral superiority, despite an utter lack of justification. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but that's how it usually comes across when I see this tactic.
Starhopper,
Bad example, bmiller. The Germans (of that time) were racist against EVERYBODY!
"Master Race", anyone?
So you're saying the French are a different race than the Germans? Is that also why the French built the Maginot line?
To most, it's apparent the lines of fortification were built by those countries to protect their own national sovereignty. Globalists purposely confound racism with nationalism since they want open borders. They realize that people have an affinity for their own nation, so they have to find (dishonest) ways of making that sound evil.
The language involved in this issue is genuinely difficult. I agree that "racist" can be an over the top characterization, but I maintain that race is a motivating factor in our current border and immigration policies. This ought to be obvious. In times past, it was more blatantly so, as when we had literal racial quotas for immigration, or when we turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the nazis.
And it is that last example that I fear most here. I am an obsessive student of history, and try to take its lessons to heart. (It's one reason I am a diehard supporter of the state of Israel, even when its policies appall me. I see the alternative to the existence of a strong Israel being a second Holocaust.) So when I hear of Honduran families fleeing sure and certain death (or worse) at the hands of narco-gangs (gangs for whose very existence the US bears a large degree of responsibility, by the way), I do not wish for MY government to condemn them to the same fate as the passengers aboard the St. Louis
"Is that also why the French built the Maginot line?"
No, the French built the Maginot line because they were stupid.
... and any wall built along our southern border would be equally stupid (and about as effective as the Maginot line was in stopping the Germans).
Starhopper,
No, the French built the Maginot line because they were stupid.
Sounds like a racist statement to me. Of course I'm joking, but that is the sort of response globalists routinely use against US nationalists.
... and any wall built along our southern border would be equally stupid (and about as effective as the Maginot line was in stopping the Germans).
Israel, who you say you support, has a wall and they claim it's effective.
But let's take a look at a recent attempt to enforce open borders. When the Soviets took over their sattelite countries they resorted to forced repopulation to dilute troublemaking nationalist groups in certain regions to keep them under control. Tito in Yugoslavia was also able to keep competing nationalist groups relatively peaceful by ruling with an iron hand. But once the strongmen were out of power, the nationalist groups reclaimed their own heritage and territory and in the Balkans it was rather bloody.
Mexico has strict immigration laws against it's southern neighbors too, so are they racist against Guatemalans for instance?
I agree with Legion. Although some people are racist against Hispanics, I think the majority of Americans just want to remain together a nation. It just happens that there is an extraordinary influx of Hispanics right now, and they are not following US law or/or are exploiting loopholes.
Maybe it's wrong for nation states to exist, but I think it's more honest to discuss this than throw accusations of racism around.
Legion of Logic said...
We do agree on that. Where we differ is you and Starhopper seem to automatically assume bigotry of some sort at the heart of it, while I understand that opposition to illegal immigration is not contingent upon race, which means I require additional (actual) evidence that bigotry is involved.
It just seems like a lazy way of dismissing opinions other than yours while also claiming moral superiority, despite an utter lack of justification. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but that's how it usually comes across when I see this tactic.
I believe bigotry is at the heart of our current treatment of Central American immigrants (both those legally claiming asylum and those who cross the border illegally) because the POTUS has repeatedly made highly bigoted, false statements about said people, and other people. The people who support the current policy are therefore supporting the outcome of this bigotry. That does not mean they are bigots, but it does support the racist structure in this country, i.e., engages in racism.
Fareed Zakaria and CNN are all a racist!!!
As was said (sung?) in the musical Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit racist."
Full Disclosure: I absolutely hated the play, and it was the only live performance I've ever walked out on. After Act One, my wife and I looked at each other and both said, "Do we have to stay for the second act?" and left. But it's still a good (and appropriate here) soundbite.
Post a Comment