Speaking of that burning hypocrisy when it comes to the national anthem, it’s worth noting that the idea of a Spanish-language Star Spangled Banner is nothing new — in fact, one was commissioned by the federal government in 1919. Oh, and our own State Department has four different versions of it.
But OMG this has never happened before they’re taking over they’re coming like cancerous cells this is so offensive who’s assimilating whom?
Xenophobes can be so silly.
To quote one of their own, we have to learn our history, we have to learn our principles.
Realizing that poor, suffering Canada is held up as the American role model example of how a country is torn apart by official bilingualism —
(we must pray of course that it never becomes multilingualism, because the next biggest ethnic population to my lay knowledge, is Ukrainian and we’d never hear the end of the pinko commies talk then. Wait a sec…)
— I find it ironic that the initial version of the present Canadian anthem was composed in French in the 1800s by two Quebecers, for the StJean Baptiste Society. It’s still going strong to this day. It was so popular, an English version was trotted out after the turn of the century (with various meddling since). Whatever arguments the great White North has with itself, who’s singing what version of the same song isn’t it.
Maybe it’s because we realize the one TRUE official language of /any/ national anthem is tuneful ‘intermittent mumble’. With feeling!
Yes, absolutely, let’s continue to insulate our minds so that we cannot discern a difference between translations done so that those in other lands can better understand, and perhaps emulate, our ideals, and those done solely for the whorish, bastardized denigration of one of America’s cherished cultural icons. Let’s cast out, without consideration, that a vile insult was perpetuated by folks we’d be better off without.
Good luck with the rest of your indoctrination, Jill. I suggest refresher courses in critical thinking and American history. Methinks you’re infested with a virulent strain of tolerance that’s going to get you into trouble…eventually. If you really think that your read on this issue is closely held by The People, you need to expand your interpersonal horizons. Go meet some folks who don’t sit around and congratulate each other for having prefected a smarmy leftist loathing for America’s ethos. But do it in measured doses lest your head explode. There are a lot more of “us” than there are of “you.”
And Jill, be careful or you will one day find yourself embarrassed for being who you are today. I was once similarly indoctrinated as yourself. But, thank God, I got over it. And, in time, I learned to laugh at my foolishness.
My indoctrination? Ah, because I don’t refer to immigrants as “bovine mexcriment“? And because I don’t photoshop Mexican-flag-colored roaches onto my blog?
How cute, I was going to suggest the same thing for you! So while you’re bitching about immigrants “taking over,” go have a look at who founded this country, who built it, and who continues to make it prosper. Hint: It isn’t the people whose families have been here for hundreds of years. Those people currently live on reservations, and they’re really the only ones who have a valid complaint that their country was “taken over.”
You mean racist, xenophobic morons? I have more faith in my country than that. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants. And while your kind has been around just about forever (see the history of U.S. immigration laws), we tend to look back and shake our heads at the kinds of rules that people like you promulgated.
There’s an interesting discussion of foreign-language versions of the national anthem on a U.S. history mailing list I read.
Someone linked to a German-language translation of the Star Spangled Banner from the Civil War. This song sheet was aimed at German-speaking Union soldiers, but the translation is a bit older. The same translation was in use in German-language public schools (bet you didn’t know those even existed!) in the Midwest into the early 20th century.
Imagine that.
I’ll bet the Native Americans would be a lot better off without the immigrants of previous centuries, including those who brought the language you’re supporting as if it somehow had more right to be heard, used, and made dominant than the Spanish you’re complaining about. Are you advocating that we all pack up and head back across the Atlantic and leave the place to the people who were here originally? They’d be better off without most of us, wouldn’t they?
If immigration was acceptable 200, 300, 400 years ago, why isn’t it acceptable now? Why isn’t it more acceptable now, since Mexican immigrants aren’t forcibly relocating us and stealing from us and otherwise exploiting us, the way previous batches of immigrants have done to the native population? Rather, they’re generally the ones being exploited, by everyone from the government that wants to make them felons when they’ve done no violence, to the employers who make use of their illegal status to keep them from being in a position to demand fair wages and working conditions, to people like you who’d happily throw out good, hardworking people who’ve spent years working for a better life—whose chances in the country they came from have been lowered significantly by NAFTA and similar programs, by our government’s programs, that have the sole and selfish purpose of making things better for us.
What’s wrong with helping people inside our contry better understand our ideals?
I agree, what those xenophobes are doing to the Statue of Liberty, and what it stands for, makes me sick. They’re trying to change “Give us your hungry, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” into “Trespassers will be shot”. It’s shameful.
That is the cultural icon you were talking about, right?
Jill, speaking as somebody who’s probably in Katie’s dad’s generation, you don’t have to “get over it.” I never did.
What do youthink they said when they saw this yesterday…
Immigration rally coverage from across the country
Definitions:
Bovine Mexcrement: Bullshit from Mexicans (sorry it went over your head)
Immigrant: A term coined by an American geographer that came into popular use after 1789 and was used by the first American Citizens (you know, the former British subjects) to draw a line between those who fought and bled for freedom, and those who came later and did not. Strictly speaking, there were no immigrants before 1789, and were a first citizen around to tell you, he vehemently would not appreciate being referred to as “immigrant.”
American Colonists: Subjects of the British Crown, until one day they weren’t. After that, they were citizens who established all sorts of “rights” for themselves, among those is the right to guard, as George Washington encouraged in his farewell address, “against the insidious wiles of foreign influence.”
To me, the thousands of foreigners galumphing through our streets with their true allegiances on their odd flags (not the ones handed to them by ANSWER organizers), sure looked like wily foreign influencers that we need to guard against. A wall would be a great
Country/Nation: Something the pre-1600 residents of this land did not have. But they did migrate here in tribal waves, fought wars, enslaved each other, sometimes killed indiscriminately…hmm… sounds like they weren’t very “special” at all. They were just “human.” And, more and more, it is becoming apparent the “native Americans” our colonist originators met were not the first here, they were merely the last here before the rest of the world caught up with them on this land and founded nations, a fairly “fresh” concept at the time.
Emma Lazarus: (see “over rated”)
Funny, I cannot find a mention of her as having a hand in doing anything of important American note in regards to the founding of this nation…oh, here it is. She won a poetry contest. How quaint.
Nation of Immigrants:(see oxymoron)
Racist, xenophobic morons:The antithesis of insipidly tolerant, xenophillic twits who are always just a hair shy of invoking Godwins Law, for they have no cogent point to make that can be backed up by specific facts or without playing very loose with the specific meanings of words.
Wow, the trolls are all over the place today…
So, you’re an immigrant, then. Unless you’re the Oldest Living Revolutionary War Veteran.
BTW, got a cite for this coinage of “immigrant”?
Jedidiah Morse, in his book “The American Geography,” first used the term “immigrant.” His son, Samuel, (the telegraph guy) is by some considered to be the first American nationalist.
And no, I’m not an immigrant, I’m a descendant of colonists with branches arriving in 1608, 1628 and later. I’m only the 13th generation removed from the 1628 line and have both written and verbal family histories entrusted to my care. Believe me, calling someone with colonist or revolutionary ancestry an “immigrant” was fighting words during the two or three generations after the revolution. The word was the epithetical equivalent of “gringo” in Mexico or the Southwest US and “Anglo” in south Florida today.
Thus, in a small sense of distant family pride, I consider having my land referred to as “a nation of immigrants” to be offensive. The fact that it is prima facie oxymoronic bothers me more.
So, because it wasn’t called “immigration” yet, people who did it before 1789 were all right, but people who do it now are bad? Calling it something else doesn’t change that it’s the same bloody thing.
Incidentally, all these “first citizens” came into this general geographical area invading the native peoples who were already there, and screwing up their lives, and their descendents’ lives, royally. Whatever you have to say about the current-day Mexican immigrants, they are obviously not having as damaging an effect as the entrance of the people to whom you ascribe some enhanced right to have done so.
I never said they were “special.” However, their prior claim to this land was at least as strong as the current claim to this land that you are invoking as sufficient reason to keep out “folks we’de be better off without.”
Funny, around the time they were putting up the Statue of Liberty, the people who were “of important American note” seemed to think that her poetry summed up their ideal of what this nation should be. Enough to put it up on a permanant monument devoted to telling everyone that they’re welcome here. Now if the current administration and its supporters want to change that, they can go and cover up the words with a “no trespassing” sign, and let the whole world know that their America is only for the people they consider worthwhile. But if you want to be exclusive, it’s damned hypocritical to continue to hold the country up as the bloody Promised Land—pick one and stick with it.
Well, duh. It’s been established long before your time that bad (racism, etc) is the antithesis of good (tolerance, etc).
I’m pretty sure Mr. Washington was referring to foreign governments, probably specifically referring to overtures from Great Britain and France to enter the wars that followed the French Revolution on either the British or French side (though i’m not 100% on that part). Immigration did not figure into that particular speech, methinks.
Incorrect. There were many nations in the Americas by the time Europeans got here. There were not, on the other hand, states–at least, no states with defined borders as Europe had been developing over the previous centuries. “Country” is a rather ill-defined term, and is not a synonym for “nation”.
And yeah, amazingly Amerindians were and are in fact human. Good to see someone on your side of the aisle acknowledge that.
Also, re comment 12: Whoopdy-frickin-doo. I’m happy for your family.
Ah, there’s what I was missing. Colonialism, a mostly nonviolent and outwardly civil, yet overwhelmingly exploitive imposition of one nation’s governmental control on another nation (which the various native tribes did tend to have, regardless of the tendency of the racist, xenophobic morons of centuries past to refuse to acknowledge them), is rather worse than any immigration, which, consisting generally of attempts to join a nation rather than take it over, causes less harm and other upheaval to the people already there.
That’s, um, how you say, “merde”.
First of all, duh, of course the natives fought wars and wandered around. So what? Our contention is that immigration is sometimes justified. Yours is that it’s evil mean badness. That Native Americans were human doesn’t mean they had no property rights.
Speaking of, you seem to be declaring that the original colonists didn’t steal the land they took because… well, because you say so, basically.
Even if we accept that premise, it only applies to the original Mayflower colony. In terms of nations to the west (Like the Sioux, say) We ARE immigrants, and immigrants who acted like bigger dicks then any modern Mexicans do.
I don’t really get this. I’m definitely on the pro-immigration side of the debate, and almost exclusively for humanitarian reasons. I’m also (I am told) “soft” on illegal immigration. Still… this type of protest makes no sense to me and I believe it will only backfire. The combination of business interests and both parties pandering to the emerging Latino voting block give immigrants (legal or illegal) a powerful voice in this belated debate. As a matter of fact we are on the cusp of granting millions of undocumented workers effective amnesty. This type of boycott makes me wonder what the organizers have in mind. If it is only to flex the numerical muscle of their interest group it seems ill-advised and poorly timed.
I guess what I am saying is “what’s the point of this?” “what are their demands?” and “why would they want to look like there extorting concessions at exactly the point when they are being given?”
Interestingly enough, there are several legal theories and actual English common law precedent that establishes the “right” of European colonialists to take the land of Native Americans.
(sometimes it was bartered for, often it was signed away in treaties… however)
One of the most fundamental rights of the sovereign is something called “right by conquest”. That’s right it means exactly what you think it means, – we fought you for it, fair & square. (might makes right)
Theirs one wrinkle however in viewing this under a politically correct anti-colonialist prism.
Well you see….. The Indians recognized a right to conquest.
By us, and amongst themselves, before we ever arrived!
(says something about our universal “in” humanity doesn’t it!)
Fitz, who was talking about the boycott/protest? Read the post, it’s about the national anthem.
Sorry – I got caught up in the thread about immigration overall, and thought I would add my two cents.
Why not change are National Anthem while were at it.
Are we the only country with bombs, rockets, & ramparts?
Pretty Hostile stuff.
Fitz, a “right to conquest” is meaningless, as it can only be determined after the fact; If the Mexicans win, then they were justified, but if they lose, then they weren’t. It says nothing about what we should do now. Obviously, if their is a right to conquest, then we can’t morally condemn conquerors, and yet at the same time we must fight them.
The whole idea is dumb.
Incidentally, I mentioned the Sioux specifically because the United States’ actions towards them are incredibly egregious, and involved violating treaties written by the US.
Chris
Well I don’t think its “dumb” but rather morally reprehensible.
Its “right by conquest” and is determined after the fact.
Its not my invention – We learned about it in law school, property law. Second case right after Pierson vs Post. That establishes the right to property in a hunted animal by the one who killed it. (and therefore established dominion over it.)
Like I said though- the interesting part is that the Indians recognized such a right. (wasn’t lost on them)
You’re the one playingt fast and loose with the meaning of words. The definition of “immigrant” your arguments hinge on is incredibly archaic. Complaining that we won’t use it is like complaining about us using “car” instead of “horseless carriage”.
Oh, I’m sure that every last one of your ancestors is descended from someone from these three lines. That there aren’t any immigrants in the woodpile.
OK, let’s all get off all of the “stolen” land in the world and we’ll meet in the narrows between the Tigris and Euphrates…that will be fun. After all, if “stolen land” is the criteria for not having a sovereign right to some place, then we must follow the concept, reductio ad absurdum.
Look forward to seeing you there. Bring some weapons, I hear it isn’t a very hospitable place…
zuzu:
Are so. Zombies.
I see you too have a Fitz invasion.
It’s hard to take him seriously when his nose and fingers keep fallin’ off and stuff.
I come to you from PandaLand where he’s doing his (her) homophobe shtick. I think its Daphne.
KD’s a fan of VDARE. I think it’s fair to write him off.
Katie’s Dad is actually making a mistake that’s very common among people who are new to doing history. He’s completely uncritical about his sources. He thinks that because people in the Early Republic drew a distinction between pre-independence “settlers” and post-independence “immigrants” that this distinction is, in fact, historically accurate. He’s mistaking his subjects’ ideology for historical fact.
You know you’re posting on a site run by a lawyer and a law student and frequented by a lot of other lawyers and law students, right? The mere fact that a theory exists in your property book doesn’t make it valid or correct. It means it’s been explicated, nothing more. Also, quoting your property book is really damn tiresome. Foxes are pernicious, dontcha know?
Response to Katie’s Dad,
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And your proud of your ancestor at the Jamestown settlement? And who were the poor unfortunates that got stuck on the frontier of the English Empire. Who’d they piss off? Or was your ancestor an indentured servant without any choice about getting on the boat and leaving jolly ole England.
Hahahahahahahah! (ya’ll could’ve at least shat in a better place at Jamestown; instead your great ancestors defecated in the river so that it came right into your drinking area. That contributed a little to the death and sickness. And ya’ll could’ve gotten along better with the Algonquins. You all couldn’t even figure out how to grow enough corn to survive. Oh yeah, you were too good for that nonsense.
Were any of your ancestors killed in one of the two early uprisings with the Algonquins?)
Even more tiresome when you cite the first damn case everyone learns in property class.
How “tolerant” of you.
Just for giggles —
More on Katie’s Dad’s proud ancestors at Jamestown in the winter of 1609-10:
“It is three planting seasons since the colony began. The settlers have fallen into an uneasy truce with the Indians, punctuated by guerrilla raids on both sides, but they have had plenty of time in which they could have grown crops…They have firearms. Game abounds in the woods; and Virginia’s rivers are filled with sturgeon in the summer and covered with geese and ducks in the winter. There are five hundred people in the colony now. And they are starving. They scour the woods listlessly for nuts, roots, and berries. And they offer the only authentic examples of cannibalism witnessed in Virginia. One provident man chops up his wife and salts down the pieces. Others dig up graves to eat the corpses. By spring only sixty are left alive.”*
So, Katie’s Dad, are you still proud of your illustrious ancestors? Only 60 left alive out of 500 – and they resorted to eating other people.
*p.72-73 in Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (1975).
And what is not to be proud of? Are you actually so inane as to assume that your ancestors never committed atrocities? Never suffered hardships? You’re not laughing just at my ancestors, bubba, you’re disparaging your own.
I don’t know whether that fact is more laughable or pathetic, but I’ll pick the latter because it seems to be a better fit for the little I know of your character.
My family all came here between the 1880s and the 1940s. Whoops, I guess I’d better leave. But then, I’m sure this troll would prefer me to leave anyway, since I’m Hispanic and therefore too sympathetic to those damn furriners.
I only mention my source because my point was belittled by Christopher.
The “right by conquest” was/is a well established right and grounded in English common law & the law of nations. Now contemporary mores find this approach of justification by the sovereign reprehensible. (and I agree)
However, you managed to miss my point and why I brought it up to begin with.
The Indians recognized a “right by conquest”.
Its got a certain irony, I suppose.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
“And what is not to be proud of? Are you actually so inane as to assume that your ancestors never committed atrocities? Never suffered hardships? You’re not laughing just at my ancestors, bubba, you’re disparaging your own. ”
See here now. I can only trace my ancestry back so far, specifically, to a freed slave named Charles Richardson. (And every other male member of my family is named Charles. Isn’t that creative? :P ) I have no clue what my ancestors were like, and knowing the trouble they went through to erase all traces of a slave’s ancestry, I don’t think I ever will. In any case, I know that my ancestors suffered greatly. And they did not come to conquer, they were brought here to work. The reason? Now, here’s the kicker.
*AHEM*
When the Spaniards were busy conquering the New World and building stuff, the natives turned out to not be as good with labor as they expected. Soooo….
They started importing African laborers, who were hardier than the natives.
You know KD, I’d be interested in hearing your responses to Kyra’s post as she brought up very good points instead of you just making little quips in between other posts.
I’m sure we’ll all be waiting.
I already did address them. Sorry you missed my comments that the residents of this land who merely, from an historical perspective, happened to be “here” when the colonists came succumbed to the same sort of forces they had imposed upon others who were “here” before them. Sorry you don’t understand the “nation thing,” particularly why “nation” and “immigrant” are mutually exclusive (just read the definitions side-by-side) terms. Sorry you don’t get “sovereignty,” or the inherent right within the concept for nation to decide who it allows to become part of it. Any argument that uses “but the indians were here first” begins from a moot point.
As much as I am loathe to in this forum of the misindocrinated, I’ll elaborate.
Kyra’s contends, convolutedly, that there has been 400 years of basically unfettered immigration to this first British land, then American nation. She uses trite appeals to belief that are just not so. Immigration to the US is a story of spurts, pauses and assimilation, not continuity of any sort regardless of how it may appear to someone who only has the experience of his or her own lifetime for comparison. Historically, America has benefitted tremendously from the fact that in no time prior to the recent past have any circumstances been in place in which alien disaporas were not summarily dispatched either by law, by societal intolerance of those who would not Americanize, or by global conditions that cut off much of the inflow. For instance, without 1924′s Johnson Reed Act, there would have been huge, intransigent and hostile German and Italian diasporas here at the outset of WWII that would have been horrendously problematic in our efforts to fight the Axis.
From colonial times, through the Revolution and right up until we screwed the pooch by letting that insidious Hart Cellar Act become law, there were always pauses or lulls between spurts of immigration. Prior to Hart Cellar, between one quarter and one third of those who immigrated here left: assimilation always proved impossible for some, but it was universally expected. Hart Cellar also coincided with The Great Society’s expansion of social programs, villainization of the historical majority, imposition of multiculturalism as a false “long-held value” and demonization of all who do not fit into some diversity preferential set-aside. Assmilation has been tossed out in favor of diaspora building and other balkanizing policies, such as multiple-language access to the franchise and political pandering that encourages the strengthening of ethnic blocs.
The foreign-born population of the United States has never exceeded 15 percent, despite the “nation of immigrants” gibberish. But we’re about to exceed that. World economics, wars and law always regulated its growth and facilitated the breakup of diasporas that mitigated opposition to new arrivals, but not today. Today’s immigration pattern is a dramatic break from the most important elements fo America’s historical immigration story: pauses, expectation of assimilation, and the repatriation of those who did not succeed in becoming American.
Kyra also insists that those who came here before the term “immigrant” was coined should still be considered “immigrants” for purposed of this debate. I could not disagree more. In order for someone to be an immigrant, they have to leave their home nation or country. The colonists did not leave Britain, they brought it with them. They considered themselves Brits, behaved in a British manner, had British citizen kids, followed British laws, etc. Of course, there were Dutch colonists who were brought under British rule and then had to follow British law and custom- assimilate.
If I move from Key West to Alaska, I have not immigrated, i.e. “left one country to settle permanently in another.” If I move from Mexico to Chicago without following the law, I’m not an immigrant either. I’m, by law, an illegal alien. And Vicente Fox is happy because it means one less threat that his kleptocracy will be overthrown. To the folks in here, I suppose that’s just fine and dandy. God forbid we ever think about myriad Mexican towns, drained of youth and impotent to change their horrific status quo no matter how much money America’s illegal aliens send back home. Mexico is in dire need of its own revolution, but there is virtually nobody left there young enough to fight it.
The colonists did not leave Britain, they brought it with them.
Katie’s Dad,
Asserting that the colonists in America behaved in a British manner.
Actually, Katie’s Dad, they did something quite, quite radical in Virginia’s 17th century law. They changed patralineal decent to matralineal decent in the case of enslaved women. This allowed the women’s children to be claimed as property and also kidnapped and enslaved. Your ancestors had such fantastic ideas!
Also – more on your ancestors that you are so proud of in Jamestown:
“Another scene, a year later, in the spring of 1611. The settlers have been reinforced with more men and supplies from England. The preceding winter has not been as gruesome as the one before, thanks in part to corn obtained from the Indians. But the colony still is not growing its own corn. The governor, Lord De la Warr, weakened by the winter, has returned to England for his health. His replacement, Sir Thomas Dale, reaches Jamestown in May, a time when all hands could have been used in planting. Dale finds nothing planted except “some few seeds put into a private garden or two.” And the people he finds at “their daily and usuall workes, bowling in the streetes.”*
Your ancestors were very lazy and stupid. Too busy playing to plant corn. The history of Jamestown is well documented – you can read all about it!
* p. 73, Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia.
Kyra also insists that those who came here before the term “immigrant” was coined should still be considered “immigrants” for purposed of this debate. I could not disagree more.
Katie’s Dad,
By the way – what is your term for “enslaved people”? Were they immigrants?
South Carolina in the 17th century for several years had a larger enslaved residents then its free, British population. (See Peter Wood’s book, Black Majority, for example.)
Anyways, some of the slaves were straight from Africa, while others had lived in the Carribean and South America. So, what do you think, immigrants or not?
Or do you just want to ignore the enslaved population for the purposes of defining immigration? However, if you ignore the enslaved population, you should consider the importance and number of the enslaved residents in the British Carribean and North America colonies.
Universally expected by whom? By the Catholic church, which allowed immigrants to set up ethnic parishes, many of which had parochial schools with instruction in languages other than English? By midwestern cities that erected German-language public school systems that essentially ran parallel to the English-language ones? By immigrants themselves, who joined ethnic athletic clubs and ethnic signing groups and read ethnic newspapers and put their money in ethnic savings-and-loans? I can say pretty confidently that there’s never been a time when immigrants were “universally” expected to assimilate. And even people who expected immigrants to assimilate disagreed about precisely what constituted assimilation.
You’ve got it backwards. Many 19th and early 20th century immigrants came to the U.S. with the expectation that they would make enough money to buy land or otherwise improve their situation at home and then return. The successful ones did that. The people who didn’t succeed never earned enough money to improve their status at home, and many of them never followed through on their plan to return. Staying in America was often a sign of failure, rather than success. And if immigrants had been deported for failing to assimilate, most immigrants would have been deported, which is clearly not what happened.
One of the more important recent developments in migration history has been a real challenge to the hard-and-fast distinction between internal and transnational migration. Looking at things from the perspective of the twenty-first century, internal migration seems like a totally different beast from transnational migration. But that wasn’t true until the 20th century. The government didn’t have the capacity to effectively regulate migration, so the actual process of migrating between countries wasn’t particularly different from the process of migrating within countries. Many people had only vague loyalty to their nation-states, and changing national allegiance didn’t necessarily constitute a huge shift in identity. And many people had very strong regional allegiances that could be challenged by internal migration.
The writer of the post in the link marked “this is so offensive” replies to a comment as follows:
THat’s lifelong learning, there. Who said the American right was anti-intellectual?
Em,
What, no comment about my shot of “Cocky Rodriguez” putting the implant in Bush’s brain?
Since when do I have to be tolerant of xenophobic, racist dickwads?
Since when do I have to be tolerant of xenophillic utopianist carpet munchers’ demands that we add 80 million people, over a mere two generations, who hail from a culture with an average IQ of 87 because they have faith that the “diversity” will be somehow good for my nation?
I’ve yet to get an answer to that query from any of my lefty friends, who are shocked – SHOCKED – that anyone would bring worldwide IQ/GNP correlations to the table for discussion. Not that they have any cogent reason why facts and data that offend their sensibilities should be off the table, but having my sensibilities offended by their plans to continue the rape of my culture is just fine, and in fact, must be force-fed to my family in huge helpings by metrosexual little pantywaists wearing peach-colored silk shirts.
Forgettable, man. Vox does it better.
Good grief. I didn’t realize it was possible to be quite that vile (yeah, i know, i’m pretty naïve…).
And for the love of FSM, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. “Nation” is not the same thing as “state,” but you keep confusing the meanings. The United States is a state (despite its misleading name). The Cherokee are a nation. So are the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois (sorta), etc. One could argue that the US has become one nation, but i would disagree mostly.
If you’re going to make geo-political arguments, know your terms.
On the contrary, I’m not shocked at all. You parrot the early-20th century anti-immigration line completely. The IQ thing is just part of the schtick.
You’re talking to the great-grandchildren of people whom your great-grandparents tried to exclude from the U.S., on the grounds that people like us were racially degenerate and congenitally stupid. And we all turned out pretty smart! Your argument isn’t going to fly with people who have historical memory of a time when we were the people whom folks like you demonized and tried to exclude.
So here’s the thing, Katie’s Dad. You lost. Once upon a time, you got unearned status because your family had been here since the 17th century, but now no one cares. It’s time to get over it and move on.
Carpet munchers?
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Some of my best friends are metrosexual little pantywaists wearing peach-colored silk shirts!
You’re friends with Doug Giles, Lauren?
I am. I’m just waiting before I spring the whole feminazi thing on him.
Poor guy.
I’m honestly waiting for Katie’s Dad to bring up the theory that the skulls of black people look like those of chimpanzees. Or, while we’re at it, the idea that white people are more “evolved” than nonwhites. And that’s not even the weird stuff, folks. Taking Darwin’s theories out of context+ typical turn-of-the-century mindset=scary, scary stuff.
There was a bit on Weekend Update with Eddie Murphy and Joe Piscopo in which Eddie demonstrated that white people actually resembled chimpanzees more than black people did.
What? I’m old, and I finally got to stay up late during the Eddie Murphy era.
You’re not old, zuzu. You’re “mature”. ;)