Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Immigration Nation (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2029)

rgajria 08-15-2008 10:16 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
"As for rgijia's comment about India's openness, its economy has been opening up -- I'm all for that. But at the same time its immigration policy has become more restrictive for *non Indian* people as time has gone on. The 'Person of Indian Origin Visa" is explicitly racist. The vast majority of people of Indian descent in the US would qualify, but not their non-Indian fellow citizens."

Thats rgajria my friend. I am not defending India's closeness. India's immigration policy has always been restrictive. It has not become more restrictive or less.

rgajria 08-15-2008 10:19 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Wonderment,

How do you know she's Hindu?

Shikha Dalmia, I am pretty certain she is. She may be an atheist or an agnostic, that would not be incompatible with Hinduism. Her first and last name are Hindu.

stari_momak 08-16-2008 06:00 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Sorry about the misspelling rgajria.

If you go to wikipedia (not the best source by hey) you can see India tightening its already tight immigration policies.

"Any person born in India on or after 26 January 1955 but prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India by birth. A person born in India on or after 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India if either parent was a citizen of India at the time of the birth. Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or if one parent is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth."

India has every right to do this, but in that case, so does every Western nation.

Ocean seems to think that there is no such thing as white American culture. This is a common tactic of the 'critical whiteness studies' crowd. I disagree and so would just about every American from before the revolution to say, 1970 or so. Here is John Jay is Federalist number 2.

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."

No doubt this man, first Supreme Court Justice, ambassador to France, instrumental in keeping the new American Republic alive, would have been branded a 'xenophobe', after all the title of Fed. 2 is "On the Dangers of Foreign Force and Influence."

The nation he helped found produced real Americans like Edison, Ford, Twain, Melville, Thoreau, etc etc. And yes, it included African Americans and they too developed a unique culture (Scott Joplin, Louis Armstrong). Neither group would have no doubt they constituted a particular culture. "Ocean's "denial that that culture even exits betrays deep animosity to the historical and yes, especially to the white American nation.

Of course, other groups don't have any qualms about asserting cultural/racial pride and political power. Do you think Antonio Villar is mayor of LA because of his qualifications? How about Mexican raised Fabian Nuñez, did he reach his position as speaker of the California assembly due his brilliance? Or did his race/ethnicity help?

An opposite case, in Orange County California recently a guy named Tom Umberg, journeyman democratic politician (white) ran for county commissioner for the central district. He lost, the district is now mostly hispanic and vietnamese, and those groups voted for their own, a vietnamese winning. Commentators openly said Umberg wasn't a 'fit' for the district -- coded racial speach if I have ever heard it. Here is a democrat, no doubt liberal white guy and he gets beaten by the very conditions liberal white guys have helped create.

Wonderment, I will refine my analogy. If Israel let in enough non-Jews for them to be the majority in Israel, say a million Palestinians, a million Sikhs, a million Chinese, a million Christian Nigerians, would that make a difference in the nature of the state/culture? And would that be a bad thing.

Wonderment 08-16-2008 07:06 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

"Ocean's "denial that that culture even exits betrays deep animosity to the historical and yes, especially to the white American nation.
Your concept of a "white American nation" is a grotesque idea that reeks of the KKK.

White pride is a hideous ideology befitting of prison gangs and the most illiterate of angry teenage boys. Grow up and use your obvious intelligence for something less hateful and destructive.

And it's not Antonio Villa; it's Villaraigosa.

Ocean 08-16-2008 11:55 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 87622)
Ocean seems to think that there is no such thing as white American culture. This is a common tactic of the 'critical whiteness studies' crowd.
......

"Ocean's "denial that that culture even exits betrays deep animosity to the historical and yes, especially to the white American nation.

My animosity is elicited by racism, xenophobia and bigotry in general. When these come from a predominant privileged majority, the more I revolt. The "White American Nation", is certainly not as homogeneous as brethren John Jay fantasized it to be. One religion? One culture? It all depends on what White America you are talking about. Irish and Italians were rejected by the established white culture when they massively immigrated in the past century. Catholics!
What about Jews? Would White America be ready for a Jewish President? What about ten years ago? Are all the above groups white or non-white? What about "Hispanics" who are Caucasian? How would you classify them? How should I be classified? By race or by origin?

If a brethren has ideals of unity, better start embracing diversity and integration. Racism, xenophobia and intolerance only create separation.

Quote:

Of course, other groups don't have any qualms about asserting cultural/racial pride and political power. Do you think Antonio Villar is mayor of LA because of his qualifications? How about Mexican raised Fabian Nuñez, did he reach his position as speaker of the California assembly due his brilliance? Or did his race/ethnicity help?
Perhaps you should start entertaining the idea that intelligent and qualified people come in all kinds of shapes, colors and languages. Would you defend the high intellectual development and achievements of all White people? What about the non-whites?
Perhaps I owe my intelligence to being "White"? But what about being Hispanic? Oh, perhaps someone would say it's an accident. I have been told that by people, most likely people like you. And the other favorite: "You don't look Hispanic..." Oh, yeah? How is a Hispanic supposed to look? There is always a way to confirm your biased opinions if you work hard enough.

I'm very sorry that I come across as being anti-American of any color. If I was anti-American I wouldn't live in this country. It is only the bigots, of whatever color that I resent. If they are White, I not only resent them, I also consider them dangerous. They are just one step before wanting to "purify" the race. I mean, in addition to the already existent White nests.

I'm done with this topic.

grits-n-gravy 08-16-2008 01:36 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 87622)
Sorry about the misspelling rgajria.

India has every right to do this, but in that case, so does every Western nation.

This part I agree with. I lean heavily toward a more restrictive immigration policy, including modifying the constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to anyone born here, which was introduced to protect the rights of blacks in this country.

Quote:

Ocean seems to think that there is no such thing as white American culture.
You are conflating the European origins of American political institutions and culture qua culture. That is a mistake. If you just take southern culture, that is every bit of a 'black thang' as it is white. (e.g. food, speech, etc.)

Wonderment 08-17-2008 04:53 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Instead, the United States, for nearly its entire existence, is shown to be an ethnic nation characterized by non-conformist Protestantism and pre-Norman, Anglo-Saxon genealogy. This self-styled 'American' ethnie sought to reshape the nation in its own image and saw its destiny in Puritan, millennial terms. Faced with large flows of non-British immigrants, the 'Americans' employed techniques of Anglo-conformity in an attempt to transform the newcomers into 'WASP's.
I suppose the reason that 'American' rates the scare quotes is that the author does acknowledge the existence of Native Americans, Africans (free and slave), Mexicans, Asians, Jews, etc.

They would dispute the contention that they didn't really form part of the American project. True, they were denied access to WASP wealth and power (which is what justifies many forms of affirmative action today), but they did participate in the emergence and development of the culture.

What's insulting coming from thinly disguised white supremacists like Stari Monak is the notion that "whites" (WASPs?) did all the heavy lifting and somehow "own" the accomplishments. That's a historical lie and a kind of retroactive cultural genocide. It's especially disturbing to hear in a country that is healing from the wounds of slavery, segregation, Indian genocide and the persecution of other ethnic minorities.

Also, the word "white" is typically used by posters like Stari in bizarre ways that can not make sense to any serious social scientist or historian.

It might make sense to appreciate one's 17th century Protestant roots in the heath and farmland of Scotland or Wales. But what on earth could it possibly mean to say, "I am a proud member of the white race?" Not even Hitler would understand that one.

stari_momak 08-17-2008 05:31 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
@Gritz and Gravy

You are of course right that Southern Culture and American culture more generally have been influence by African culture, and so be it. Slavery was a mistake for all sorts of reasons, moral and economic and cultural, but I don't think we can deny that blacks have made a large contribution to what America is. But it doesn't follow from that that there is no such thing as a white American nation. Prairie Home companion, punk rock (in my day) emo (now) NASCAR, etc are all part of that subset of American culture that is overwhelmingly white.

Wonderment chooses to label me a 'white supremacist' and then contradicts himself by claiming that there is no such category as white. (I consider myself white nationalist). How then could I be a white supremacist? More importantly, how could the very same people that founded the US? Look at the first nationalization law, the first militia law, etc. All made reference to white people.

Moreover Wonderment's argument presumably could be applied to all self-identified groups. What does a secular Israeli Jew have to do with a necon think-tanker in Washington and what do either have to do with the Hasids that were just busted in Postville, Iowa, for labor violations in their meat packing plant. What do 'Asians' have in common -- Indians are generally closer to Europeans genetically than to Japanese, Chinese hate Japanese and both hate the Koreans., but all have their 'contributions' celebrated in 'Asian American month'.

Wonderment also seems unhappy that I don't bow down before the great immigration God, I don't pray in the direction of Ellis Island and venerate the Statue of Immig-- uh, Liberty. Well, quite frankly I don't. Would 'we' have fewer Nobel prizes if their had not been the great wave of Jewish immigration in the 1890s and 1900s, no. But we'd still have a lot. Would we have fewer track medals in the Olympics is our population resembled Australias (except larger) , sure. But then again we almost certainly wouldn't have the problems with the Arab world that we do (See Meersheimer and Walt), and we for sure would have a lower crime rate (see the FBI's uniform crime reporting). The population is what it is, but I see no reason why use ordinary 'white bread' folks shouldn't want to keep it that way , or should continue to acquiesce in an immigration policy which is drastically changing the demographics of the country to our detriment.

Ocean 08-17-2008 10:39 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mvantony (Post 87728)
Well, what's your concept of "whiteness"? It's surely not just skin color, right? Presumably, light-skinned Jews (like the kind I am, with blue eyes, and skin that turns pink in the sun) wouldn't count. Nor would it make a difference if a Jew's name (like mine: Antony -- shortened by my paternal grandfather from Antonofsky) and mastery of the "common American culture" made it such that reliably identifying him or her as a Jew was difficult or impossible for most people. So it's not just skin color plus common culture either. If that's right, then what's still missing in your concept of "white"? A link to Christianity? If so, I'm guessing that not just any link will do, since a "white" Jew who converts to Christianity and masters whatever cultural elements are required still isn't really white, correct? I imagine a genetic link to something other than mere skin color is required. (Some Christian ancestral link? Maybe, so long as it's not all the way back to Jesus, since that gets you to Jews again). But, in any case, please you tell me how you understand your concept "white."

Another question: You say you like your country's demographics (even though it was better 20 or 30 years ago). Aside from wanting to place severe restrictions on future non-white immigration, and wanting to rid Jews of the enormous control they have over your country (through AIPAC, controlling the media, etc. -- see Mearsheimer and Walt), what additional changes within the United States does your white nationalism lead you to wish to see occur?

I'm glad that you are starting to see what the real problem is.

grits-n-gravy 08-17-2008 12:10 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 87725)
@Gritz and Gravy
But it doesn't follow from that that there is no such thing as a white American nation. Prairie Home companion, punk rock (in my day) emo (now) NASCAR, etc are all part of that subset of American culture that is overwhelmingly white.


The ideas of a white american culture and white american nation are two different things, with the latter being a much more contested notion. To talk about a "white nation" is to relegate non-whites to second class citizens, not to mention remind people why 'whiteness' was constructed in the first place. There would be no whiteness without blackness. So I can refer back to Hegal's master/slave dialectic to question the boundaries and normative claims of your idea of a white nation.

Ocean 08-17-2008 01:51 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mvantony (Post 87730)
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to. But whatever it is, does it mean I'm not xenophobic anymore?

mvantony,

When you challenged stari-momak's concept of "whiteness", you detailed the multiple problems intrinsic to coming up with such definitions. The boundaries of whiteness are artificial, as you described in your post. It arbitrarily appears to exclude certain groups, but it isn't clear how that happens. You also seemed to make reference to the potential consequences that could be derived from wanting to protect a particular group while rejecting others. This is a paragraph you wrote in response to stari-momak:

Quote:

Another question: You say you like your country's demographics (even though it was better 20 or 30 years ago). Aside from wanting to place severe restrictions on future non-white immigration, and wanting to rid Jews of the enormous control they have over your country (through AIPAC, controlling the media, etc. -- see Mearsheimer and Walt), what additional changes within the United States does your white nationalism lead you to wish to see occur?
Unless I'm misreading you, you are questioning stari-momak, because his attitude towards those that he identifies as non-white, is similar to the kinds of attitudes that created the holocaust and many other instances of genocide throughout history. Am I misreading you?

Now compare to a previous paragraph that you wrote:

Quote:

Now consider a person who identifies with the dominant culture in some society, and would like things to stay that way. Must that be xenophobic, and hence immoral? What should they want instead? The silly, immoral alternative mentioned above? Of course not. So it's hard to see why anyone wishing for a (moral) state of cultural dominance to persist must thereby be immoral or xenophobic.
The problem I saw in what you wrote here, is that, although you tried to sanitize the statement by including "moral", the basic principle of protecting the "purity" of a predominant group, and rejecting the influence of a minority group, isn't really very different than what you criticize (I think) above. The line between the two is too tenuous. And one has to question what principle drives the desire to protect the group.

I'm not asking you that you agree, if you can't, but, at least do you see the point? Do you see the similarity between what appears to be a "White supremacist" statement and the example you, (I think inadvertently) gave?

It may be that we just fundamentally disagree or that we are not succeeding in communicating effectively. One way or the other, I think we should stop the discussion. There aren't all that many more ways that you or I can expose our views.
Feel free to have the last word. And thank you for your interest in this topic.

rgajria 08-17-2008 09:22 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Wikipedia is as good a source as any. Again, I am not defending India's closed immigration policies. You are using it as an example to defend a certain policy for these United States.

Steve D's opinion about the history of the United States sounds very close to Howard Zinn's interpretation of history. Sad!

stari_momak 08-18-2008 03:41 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Gritz and Gravy

I doesn't follow that because a country has a predominant culture associated with one of its population groups, that members of other population groups are then second class citizens in the political sense. Malays and Indians in Singapore who are citizens have full political rights, even though Singapore is basically a Han Chinese city-state that has various policies to keep it that way. Your formulation would deny any majority population the right to maintain its demographics and have its culture reflected in national institutions.

Moreover, as it stands, I think there is a good case to be made that whites are distinctly second class citizens. 65 percent of the population identifies as non-Hispanic white (down from 85% 30 years ago), yet only 10 percent of legal immigrants are white -- and that is not for lack of candidates, there are literally millions, probably 10s of millions of eastern europeans who would like to immigrate but can't because they are frozen out by third world chain migration. White kid are taught to hate the history of the country their ancestors built --the great heros are being airbrushed out in favor of non-whites. Whites can be legally discriminated against, not to make up for past wrongs -- real or imaginary -- but for the sake of 'diversity'.

Ocean thinks that somehow recognizing that their are different biological groups who have some pretty obvious differences is 'going to lead to the Holocaust'. This of course could be said of any political idea. Socialism led to fair greater Holocausts that 'the Holocaust'. There is a case to be made that Laissez Faire libertarianism was largely responsible for the huge amount of death and dislocation in the Irish potato famine.

There are, as I said, lots of reasons to oppose mass immigration, most of them 'liberal' . We know it hurts the wages of the poorest (see Borjas' work) , we know it damages the local environment, we know it dampens civic participation (see Putnam). The reason that liberals oppose any attempt at restriction is fear of being called racist -- one of the first posters in this thread called CIS -- a group that doesn't deal with race at all. But what the attackers call 'racist' is just the normal feelings of the vast majority of people around the world (see immigration regulations in almost any non-Western country) to live among their own kind. Its time to stop crawling in front of that accusation.

stari_momak 08-18-2008 05:30 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
I wrote a long answer to you mvanthony, but it seems to have vanished into the ether. Basically, I said that white is both biological and a matter of self identification. As to Jews, I'd say the vast amount self identify as white, they are lumped in with the rest of the white population by the state as far as affirmative action. At the same time there is a significant minority that seem uncomfortable with the majority culture, a significant minority that don't like, say, intermarriage with white gentiles (Elliot Abrams wrote a book about that and there are a ton of Jdate type services), and a small minority that is pretty much hostile to the majority culture (see Hebe magazine and the SPLC)

grits-n-gravy 08-18-2008 11:42 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 87792)
Gritz and Gravy

I[t] doesn't follow that because a country has a predominant culture associated with one of its population groups, that members of other population groups are then second class citizens in the political sense.

Yes, I agree. But that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about inscribing preferential treatment in law for the majority racial group, i.e. policies and practices that ensure the numerical and/or political supremacy of the majority racial group. We are not really talking about culture because, culturally speaking, a white southerner has more in common with a black southerner than a eastern european straight off the boat. Your argument really boils down to a racialist one, if not racist.

stari_momak 08-19-2008 06:56 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
"But that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about inscribing preferential treatment in law for the majority racial group, i.e. policies and practices that ensure the numerical and/or political supremacy of the majority racial group."

It may be racialist, but if so surely it isn't blameworthy. First, no country outside of 'the West' is willing to see its demographics dramatically altered, and even the Western Europeans are having second thoughts. India, Japan, Singapore, even South African blacks recently rioted against immigrants -- of their own race! Second, it it is blameworthy, surely the attempts by other racial/ethnic groups to dramatically alter the demographics of a specific polity in favor of their own group. La Raza pushes immigration in general, but really concentrates on 'Latino' immigration, the biggest single user of H1-Bs by far is Infosys, and Indian-based and run company. You want to wager that 90%+ of those H1-Bs are going to Indians? Indeed, I think that is what is really motivating the woman on this video. It seems to me that basically using the US -- contrary to popular belief one of the oldest polities in the world in terms of legal order and present boundaries -- for lebensraum or colonization is more morally suspect than merely wanted to maintain the countries demographics. At any rather, its not like demographics will stop changing at some sort of parity , however defined. Will immigration stop once whites are the minority, at 33%, at 25%, at 10%? The LA Unified School District is now 90% 'Latino', it seems to me that it is both natural and proper that Euro, white, anglo, however you want to label us would try to stop that from happening to the rest of the country. Your policy is essentially demographic suicide.

As to Southern Culture thing, I am not so sure. Example, Southrons have surely adopted the Banjo, and African instrument , but there ain't a lot of African-American banjo players these day (at least that I know of). I've seen pictures/videos of the black spring break in Atlanta, and man that seems to me that has a lot more in common with northern, Urban, hip-hop culture than it does with, say, modern southern music from REM or the B-52s. That isn't to say there aren't shared elements, but there is a lot separate too and the separation seems to be growing naturally. And I think your average white southern father would rather his daughter marry a Pole than an African-American, and I don't find that sentiment (if it exists) horrible.

This has all got very far from Krikorian's original point. All this demographic change is not only for basically no strictly economic benefit to the receiving population (no study has ever shown immigration on balance to be a benefit in anything but a small fraction of a percent) and with drastic negative effects on environment, infrastructure, schools, etc.

stari_momak 08-19-2008 07:11 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Its nice to see an honest Zionist, i.e one that accords to the other nations of the world the same thing he / she feels about Israel. There are a few out there, one is Anthony Smith, (despite the name he is Jewish) author of <i>National Identity</i>.

stari_momak 08-19-2008 07:21 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
And to clarify further for mvanthony yes, there is a specific American culture that was until very recently associated mostly with white folks. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, etc. That is, US culture is not some tabula rasa. Surely it has and will continue to change, but the present population has the right to guide those changes as its sees fit. Interestingly but not surprisingly, some of the greatest works celebrating and formalizing that culture were created by Jews. I am thinking Aaron Copeland's compositions, Oscar and Hammerstein (what is more recognizably American than either Carousel or Oklahoma!) . I am not sure such composers etc. exist today.

Ocean 08-19-2008 08:49 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
mvantony,

You are "making me" pick up this thread again! But this time, I want to praise your determination to fully understand the issues involved here. I think this is definitely a very important topic considering the state of tension across the world due to massive movement of various people from country to country and because of the increasing polarization originated, among other factors, by religious fundamentalism.

I think you and I have a problem with the very definition of xenophobia. So, perhaps, it's better to leave that word aside. It seems to me, though, that you may be saying that it's plausible that there is a form of what I call xenophobia, that isn't morally wrong. But, it's better to drop the term all together, as it appears to be inflammatory.

Just for clarification, I don't think that minorities need to be celebrated. I advocate that they are respected and not seen as a threat.

And now I'll try to articulate the principles that drive my position.
I think we all share certain attributes inherent to being human beings. That is what I will call our "sameness". If you stick to those basic attributes we have to recognize that we are all facing similar challenges for our survival in this planet. Whether we talk about environment, wars, illnesses, etc, we are all equally exposed and vulnerable to them. Then, of course, there are differences among people, of all kinds: race, ethnicity, culture, language, ideologies, religion, and many more. The central question for me is: are we going to focus on the differences or on the similarities? And this is the central question, in my opinion. What are the possible consequences if you focus on differences? What would be the consequences if you focus on what we have in common? Can we switch from "us vs them" to just "all of us"? Is it possible to think of "all of us", and yet, respect some of the differences?

I believe that, if we continue to emphasize the differences, we will be heading for more division, hatred, conflict and we will be at high risk of perishing. I also believe that you can live in multiculturalism without experiencing a sense of loss. But it does require tolerance and humility. If you think that your own group (however you define it, race, religion, etc.) is superior to others and therefore reject the possibility of "contamination" by other groups, then you will feel very threatened by the growth of other groups.

Again, I wanted to respond to your thoughtful commentary, and perhaps clarify where my position comes from.

Wonderment 08-19-2008 07:37 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

I do think that the sorts of issues we're talking about here are among the deepest and most difficult that humans face.
Well, maybe so, but that doesn't mean there is no simple answer.

I tend to agree with Ocean on this -- the best approach to ethnic identity, immigration, cultural autonomy problems is from a human rights perspective. Human rights trump nationalism and ethnocentrism. No culture is worth preserving at the expense of another culture.

Gandhi had this figured out 70 years ago. He said the real challenge was to live nonviolently without clinging to ethnic, religious and national identities when life/death, war/peace, freedom/oppression are hanging in the balance.

He was right. Peace and social justice are more important than any culture's dominance of another. People need to learn to live together. Ethnic nationalism is an unsustainable ideology.

Which is why I'm not a Zionist and why I believe that Zionism is a failed ideology.

Immigration seems to me to be a kind of red herring. It's not the real issue. If you look at the push and pull forces generating immigration, solutions emerge that are consistent with social, economic and environmental justice. If you address those core issues, you've done more than enough for humanity; you don't have to worry about ethnic allegiances and you don't have to defend the ethnic character of any nation state.

grits-n-gravy 08-19-2008 07:47 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 87867)
"But that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about inscribing preferential treatment in law for the majority racial group, i.e. policies and practices that ensure the numerical and/or political supremacy of the majority racial group."

It may be racialist, but if so surely it isn't blameworthy. First, no country outside of 'the West' is willing to see its demographics dramatically altered, and even the Western Europeans are having second thoughts. India, Japan, Singapore, even South African blacks recently rioted against immigrants -- of their own race!

This is the fatal flaw in your argument. Whites in America are NOT like Germans, Italians, black South Africans, and a host of other peoples that genuinely comprise a nation-state. Whites, like whites in south africa or australia, are settler populations who usurped the indigenous folks' land. As Dick Gregory said in the 70s, whites saying they discovered America is like me walking past your car, with you in it, only to stop and say, 'ah, what a nice car, I guess I'll 'discover' it. You cannot steal something outright and legitimatly claim you're its rightful owner. (Please don't tell me you stole it fair and square.)

You can favor immigration restrictions without resorting to a racialist argument.

Quote:

As to Southern Culture thing, I am not so sure. Example, Southrons have surely adopted the Banjo, and African instrument , but there ain't a lot of African-American banjo players these day (at least that I know of). I've seen pictures/videos of the black spring break in Atlanta, and man that seems to me that has a lot more in common with northern, Urban, hip-hop culture than it does with, say, modern southern music from REM or the B-52s. That isn't to say there aren't shared elements, but there is a lot separate too and the separation seems to be growing naturally. And I think your average white southern father would rather his daughter marry a Pole than an African-American, and I don't find that sentiment (if it exists) horrible.
If you're still having doubts about the cultural affinity of white and black southerners I suggest you pick up a copy of this encyclopedia.

Quote:

This has all got very far from Krikorian's original point. All this demographic change is not only for basically no strictly economic benefit to the receiving population (no study has ever shown immigration on balance to be a benefit in anything but a small fraction of a percent) and with drastic negative effects on environment, infrastructure, schools, etc.
I'm inclined to agree. So why bring in white nationalism? It's neither necessary nor cogent.

stari_momak 08-20-2008 03:03 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
@Gritz and Gravy

I don't agree that that whites in America aren't like peoples elsewhere. (1) Every country, if you go back far enough, has experience conquest. England used to be inhabited by basically the Welsh. They got conquered. In northern Japan the Ainu were dominant, not anymore(2) The founders didn't think that they were some sort of universal nation. Even the very Declaration of Independence, the Cato-type libertarians favorite document, talks about the Indian Savages and (more cryptically) slave insurrections. Unfortunate as this may be, that's the history (3) Up until very recently white Americans, and particular 'old stock' Americans, had no trouble seeing America as basically a white country with some racial minorities. Indians were treated as sovereign nations (as they still are, look at the Casinos) No, historically the old stock, white population didn't seem themselves as some 'proposition nation'. They didn't think that we had the duty to take in everybody, or to be a Brazil north which is what we are becoming.

Why do I stress white nationalism?

(1) Its the 'most repulsive argument' -- so if you can get 'correct thinkers' thinking about it, then they will start thinking about other aspects of American culture and immigration (2) any immigration restrictionist anywhere is going to be accused of 'racism'. Within three or four posts CIS and Krikorian were accused of racism. So, if critics want to open that can of worms, lets really open it (3) Living in California,I see a demoralized white population, particularly the young white, males from the working class. They copy black or 'Latino' ways and speech. They see their history denigrated. They see other groups expressing racial solidarity (MeCha, La Raza). They need their heritage back and white nationalism is the only what to do that at this point.

Ocean 08-20-2008 08:28 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
You keep getting lost in detail. You won't understand what I said before, and even less so be able to reject it, unless you step back, come out of the tribe mode of thinking, and look at the essential elements of the issue. You said before that this topic is confusing to you. I'll tell you why. You need to synthesize. There is always this side and that side. Even when it's important to consider both and each, you need to grasp the totality. I'm sorry if I'm being too abstract. I would invite you to stick your head out of the branches and look at the forest. If you can't do that, this dialogue is futile.

Perhaps we need to table this until a better time...

Wonderment 08-20-2008 04:37 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Michael,

I will start by saying that I think -- to some degree -- that Ocean makes a fair criticism. Given my distaste for Zionism and all other forms of nationalism (I watch the Olympics every four years and get the impression that it's always Berlin in 1936), it seems to me that you are overcomplicating the issue because you don't want to accept the implications of the simple solutions.

It reminds me a little of creationists, who elaborate complex theories to dispute evolution. They may be a lot smarter and even better educated about biology, chemistry and physics than people who simply accept what they're taught in high school science class, but at the end of the day, it's the 14-year-old C student who could explain natural selection in two sentences who got it right.

But let's see if I can overcome that initial prejudice and go a little deeper.

Quote:

I think the deep problem concerns relations between human groups and communities generally, not just for nations, ethnicities, cultures and religions, but also for subcultures, organizations of various sorts, subpopulations (of some city or region, e.g.), and smaller groups as well.
I agree. The larger issue is conflict resolution and peaceful co-existence (I would say in a multicultural micro or macro world) .

Quote:

Simply mentioning "human rights" does little to solve the hard problems that arise when human groups come into conflict over resources, power, etc. (e.g., in Quebec).
"Simply mentioning" is of course insufficient, but using rights as a framework seems necessary to me.

I[QUOTE]'ll grant that where there are clear human rights violations on one side of a group-conflict, it seems correct that human rights should trump group interests. But I think that's rarely the case. It's certainly not always the case.[/QUOTE

Ok, let's look at some instances where it's not the case.

Quote:

In the examples of immigration that come up in these conversations (Hispanics to the US, Muslims to European countries like Britain and France, etc.), the culture of the immigrant populations is never under threat.
The culture in the source country is not at risk, but the immigrants' culture is at risk. They are uprooted, alienated, culture shocked and pressured to assimilate. In the USA, the dominant culture has ALWAYS won, except in cases of a tiny minority of the religious literalist groups like Hasidim and Amish.

Quote:

This assumes that ethnic, religious, and national identities are the real problem. I suspect the real problem runs deeper, and that, given the nature of the human mind, conflicts among groups that have been formed on the basis of other strongly-felt common interests could also lead to conflict, war, oppression, etc. Should we stop clinging to the desire to form human communities on the basis of common, deeply-felt, important-to-us interests? Presumably not. Rather, it seems to me, we need to learn how to manage and regulate this "human group activity" thing in better, more just ways; and also get a better handle on certain of our destructive, innate psychological tendencies.
I don't see why organizations like the UN (in its infancy still and with many problems, to be sure), robust organizations of international law, NGOs devoted to human rights, conflict resolution and reconciliation centers, multi-cultural education, immigrant and refugee rights groups, and so on are incapable of this task. Why not throw a few billion from the world's weapons budgets into an international University of Peace, Justice and Conflict Resolution. You could put it in Darfur, Lhasa or Gaza City.

Quote:

You may be right. But it seems to me that the general problem here -- assuming it is a problem -- is countries with politically and culturally dominant ethnicities (countries like Mexico, e.g., if I'm not mistaken) who view the country as if it's theirs (where "they" refers to members of the dominant ethnicity).
I don't want to re-argue Israeli politics, but I will stipulate that Mexico has a long history of persecuting its native ethnic minorities.

Quote:

It seems likely, for example, that the French-English tensions in Canada aren't even addressable without acknowledging the fact that the Quebecois value their culture, fear it will be eroded if certain restrictions aren't put in place, and so on.
The French and English seem to have come to a pretty good resolution of their conflict. Both cultures flourish, no one gets deported, no one gets shot, no one goes through checkpoints, no one is occupied, no one is blowing up buildings (or houses); people interact on a daily basis, and they all cheer for Canada at the Olympics. It's a success story based on compromise, a rejection of violence, a clear stake in a win-win outcome, mutual respect, etc., etc., etc.

Actually, Spain is a better example. The fascist government of Franco crushed regional cultures, denied everyone their rights and forced everyone to adhere to Castillian nationalism. When democracy and human rights returned -- a mere thirty-five years ago -- the oppressed minorities had to be accomodated, recognized and respected. Today, if you go to Barcelona, everyone speaks Catalán. If you go to San Sebastián they speak Euskara (Basque). The dominant culture has grumbled and sulked a bit about the Catalan region, and the entire nation has flipped out over ETA terrorism, but generally the multi-cultural model is moving ahead in a context of mutual respect and human rights. None of Franco's nightmares about the dissolution of the Spanish state and its culture has come true.

grits-n-gravy 08-20-2008 08:17 PM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stari_momak (Post 88019)
@Gritz and Gravy

I don't agree that that whites in America aren't like peoples elsewhere. (1) Every country, if you go back far enough, has experience conquest. England used to be inhabited by basically the Welsh. They got conquered. In northern Japan the Ainu were dominant, not anymore . . . (3) Up until very recently white Americans, and particular 'old stock' Americans, had no trouble seeing America as basically a white country with some racial minorities.

The European conquest of North America was unique in many respects. For one thing, it wasn't very clear at all for all of the 17th century what kind of nation early American colonial society would evolve into. For all intense and purposes, blacks and whites co-existed and co-mingled on equal terms until the early 18th century when slavery was fully racialized. So it is not clear to me at all that whites in the early colonial era - at least around the Chesapeke region- were sold on a particular kind of political future and social relations much less conceive of 'America' as a white country. It's significant that this notion of a 'white' (as opposed to a christian) country emerged after slavery was racialized, not before, and let's not forget that the Quakers had voiced their opposition to slavery since the 1600s. I would also note a similar period of American race relation occurred in the West prior to the western expansion.

Wonderment 08-21-2008 03:36 AM

Re: Immigration Nation
 
Quote:

(I think you might like Kymlicka, Wonderment.) From his page, I also got to three interesting, brief and accessible, interviews (around 15 minutes each) on the radio show "Philosophy Bites:
(1) Will Kymlicka on Minority Rights
(2) Anne Phillips on Multiculturalism
(3) Kwame Anthony Appiah on Cosmopolitanism
Sounds interesting. I will definitely check them out. Hasta la vista, מותק.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.