O'Rielly ♥ white christians
May 17, 2006 5:50 PM Subscribe
"many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed." O'Reilly continued: "According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will."
Then there's John Gibson's call for more white babies
Then there's John Gibson's call for more white babies
If I'm parsing O'Reilly's statement correctly, he actually believes that a "white power structure" controls America. I never thought I'd hear it straight from the horse's ass mouth before.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:56 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:56 PM on May 17, 2006
Hey, the Constitution says We the people, not all you others.
posted by dhartung at 6:04 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by dhartung at 6:04 PM on May 17, 2006
I just want to sweep out the facists.
posted by UseyurBrain at 6:05 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by UseyurBrain at 6:05 PM on May 17, 2006
If nothing else, i'm starting to admire Fox for at least FINALLY putting their cards on the table and saying what they really think instead of speaking in code.
That being said, Fox makes me ill.
posted by underdog at 6:06 PM on May 17, 2006
That being said, Fox makes me ill.
posted by underdog at 6:06 PM on May 17, 2006
Keith Olberman wondered if O'Reilly's opinion came with the white sheet and the hood or if he had to buy those seperately.
Burn!
posted by Justinian at 6:07 PM on May 17, 2006
Burn!
posted by Justinian at 6:07 PM on May 17, 2006
Reilly is a blowhard, but in this case he's not so very far off with his assessment of the far left. I have tons of liberal friends -- and I'm pretty liberal myself actually -- and the multicultural experiment is sacrosant, though it really doesn't seem to be working all that well.
This topic is easily breeched by this immigration hoohaw -- one inevitably comes to a conversational wall surrounding the concept of cultural homogeny and national sovereignty. General speaking, leftists are opposed to both. O Reilly is just letting loose the most obvious cat call from the conservative corner.
As for the babies bit, what's wrong with such a call? Similar to the Jews recently pressing for more Jewish babies, blacks freaking out about abortion statistics, etc. It's a natural and historically acceptable reaction to a changing racial population.
But oh, I forget, race is a social construct. Nevermind.
posted by undule at 6:08 PM on May 17, 2006
This topic is easily breeched by this immigration hoohaw -- one inevitably comes to a conversational wall surrounding the concept of cultural homogeny and national sovereignty. General speaking, leftists are opposed to both. O Reilly is just letting loose the most obvious cat call from the conservative corner.
As for the babies bit, what's wrong with such a call? Similar to the Jews recently pressing for more Jewish babies, blacks freaking out about abortion statistics, etc. It's a natural and historically acceptable reaction to a changing racial population.
But oh, I forget, race is a social construct. Nevermind.
posted by undule at 6:08 PM on May 17, 2006
He's conflating the far left with the Democrats, I think. On the actual far left, there are basically two camps. One believes that the black and Latino nationalist movements will play key roles in any revolution against capitalism (and the white power structure that accompanies it). The other liquidates nationalities into classes -- "Black and White, Unite and Fight" sort of stuff. The Democrats, who are led by white Christians, are part and parcel of the power structure that the far left is against.
What's disturbing is the open white supremacism. The far left could give two shits about attacking "white Christians"; it's about capitalism, there. To rally to this defensive cry; well, it's got echoes of the model fascist thug group -- the Ku Klux Klan.
posted by graymouser at 6:09 PM on May 17, 2006
What's disturbing is the open white supremacism. The far left could give two shits about attacking "white Christians"; it's about capitalism, there. To rally to this defensive cry; well, it's got echoes of the model fascist thug group -- the Ku Klux Klan.
posted by graymouser at 6:09 PM on May 17, 2006
Is John Gibson really a person. He looks like something a cartoonist drew for an episode of the Simpsons.
posted by caddis at 6:20 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by caddis at 6:20 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
I don't understand how anyone with the power of sight can take John Gibson seriously. He looks like Ed Begley, Jr.'s deformed clone. You should have to pass a very low threshold of non-freakishness appearance-wise before you can talk about things on TV. Of course I can't really talk, here is the mon chi chi I get my news from most evenings.
posted by ND¢ at 6:21 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by ND¢ at 6:21 PM on May 17, 2006
Oh God am I parsing correctly or O'Reilly is saying Ronald Regan was WRONG ?
Now in 1986, President Reagan thought he could solve the [immigration] problem by granting about 3 million illegal aliens amnesty.
and a few lines under we read
Of course, just the opposite happened.
WOW ! O'Youreally dissing Regan ? Heaven Forbid , next he'll say Bush was misguiding the nation !
posted by elpapacito at 6:25 PM on May 17, 2006
Now in 1986, President Reagan thought he could solve the [immigration] problem by granting about 3 million illegal aliens amnesty.
and a few lines under we read
Of course, just the opposite happened.
WOW ! O'Youreally dissing Regan ? Heaven Forbid , next he'll say Bush was misguiding the nation !
posted by elpapacito at 6:25 PM on May 17, 2006
Ops forgot this.
Meanwhile , Senate approves more fencing of southern border.
posted by elpapacito at 6:28 PM on May 17, 2006
Meanwhile , Senate approves more fencing of southern border.
posted by elpapacito at 6:28 PM on May 17, 2006
fox news admits white power is controlling america? i'm going outside to check the sky for flying pigs.
posted by 3.2.3 at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by 3.2.3 at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2006
Of course, O'Rielly's "far left" includes the Washington Post and New York Times.
O'REILLY: Now in 1986, President Reagan thought he could solve the [immigration] problem by granting about 3 million illegal aliens amnesty. The New York Times was in heaven, editorializing back then, quote, "The new law won't work miracles but it will induce most employers to pay attention, to turn off the magnets, to slow the tide." Of course, just the opposite happened. But the Times hasn't learned a thing. That's because the newspaper and many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed.
According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will. This can only happen if demographics change in America.
An open-border policy and the legalization of millions of Hispanic illegal aliens would deeply affect the political landscape in America. That's what The New York Times and many others on the left want. They might get it. And that's the "Memo."
emphasis mine
posted by MikeKD at 6:33 PM on May 17, 2006
O'REILLY: Now in 1986, President Reagan thought he could solve the [immigration] problem by granting about 3 million illegal aliens amnesty. The New York Times was in heaven, editorializing back then, quote, "The new law won't work miracles but it will induce most employers to pay attention, to turn off the magnets, to slow the tide." Of course, just the opposite happened. But the Times hasn't learned a thing. That's because the newspaper and many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed.
According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will. This can only happen if demographics change in America.
An open-border policy and the legalization of millions of Hispanic illegal aliens would deeply affect the political landscape in America. That's what The New York Times and many others on the left want. They might get it. And that's the "Memo."
emphasis mine
posted by MikeKD at 6:33 PM on May 17, 2006
Bill O'Reilly likes big butts and he cannot lie.
To his white brothers he will deny
That when a sista walks in
with that creamy chocolate skin
That roundess all up in his face
Like lox on a bagel
Falafal on a table
Totally unable to contain it
or restrain it
He gets sprung
By those damn big buns
Like two big fat black cats
fightin' in a gunny sack
His cracker friends wouldn't understand
But he's hooked and beyond caring
His eyeballs popped, totally staring
Take a picture, before she hit'chya
with a suit, you big fat spook.
Mr. Falafal? Why you such a stale waffle?
Massive, massive apologies to Sir Mix-A-Lot.
posted by loquacious at 6:35 PM on May 17, 2006 [3 favorites]
To his white brothers he will deny
That when a sista walks in
with that creamy chocolate skin
That roundess all up in his face
Like lox on a bagel
Falafal on a table
Totally unable to contain it
or restrain it
He gets sprung
By those damn big buns
Like two big fat black cats
fightin' in a gunny sack
His cracker friends wouldn't understand
But he's hooked and beyond caring
His eyeballs popped, totally staring
Take a picture, before she hit'chya
with a suit, you big fat spook.
Mr. Falafal? Why you such a stale waffle?
Massive, massive apologies to Sir Mix-A-Lot.
posted by loquacious at 6:35 PM on May 17, 2006 [3 favorites]
this just in: newspapers will use the same exact 2 sentence quote 4 times in as many paragraphs.
I know, I know, what he said was fucked up and racist. i know. but seriously, how many times do you have to repeat the sentence before you've driven the point home?
posted by shmegegge at 6:37 PM on May 17, 2006
I know, I know, what he said was fucked up and racist. i know. but seriously, how many times do you have to repeat the sentence before you've driven the point home?
posted by shmegegge at 6:37 PM on May 17, 2006
Let's all hug the tar baby and get along.
posted by BillyElmore at 6:41 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by BillyElmore at 6:41 PM on May 17, 2006
The immigration ruckus is humorous, because it has exposed a deep fault line within the Republican party.
On the one side are the principal funders of the Republican party, assorted corporations. They do NOT want any enforcement of immigration rules whatsoever, since cutting the supply of cheap labor would inevitably increase their costs of doing business.
On the other side are most Republican voters, who are racists. While not all Republicans are racists, it is pretty much true that all racists are Republicans. Years of welcoming racists into the party have worked acceptably at the polls for the Republicans, but here we see the sole possible downside: should an issue come up which separates the true heart of the party (corrupt business) from its voters, these fault lines could be deadly.
And this is the sole issue. On almost any other issue, the party would be able to pander to the base and business wouldn't care. But this one affects profits. Labor costs are the largest expense for any business. No pandering is permitted, or campaign contributions will dry up.
Hence, the schism. Republican supporters who would happily watch Bush blow up little children for the War on Eurasia are turning on him because he won't commit to concentration camps for the brown people.
posted by jellicle at 6:44 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
On the one side are the principal funders of the Republican party, assorted corporations. They do NOT want any enforcement of immigration rules whatsoever, since cutting the supply of cheap labor would inevitably increase their costs of doing business.
On the other side are most Republican voters, who are racists. While not all Republicans are racists, it is pretty much true that all racists are Republicans. Years of welcoming racists into the party have worked acceptably at the polls for the Republicans, but here we see the sole possible downside: should an issue come up which separates the true heart of the party (corrupt business) from its voters, these fault lines could be deadly.
And this is the sole issue. On almost any other issue, the party would be able to pander to the base and business wouldn't care. But this one affects profits. Labor costs are the largest expense for any business. No pandering is permitted, or campaign contributions will dry up.
Hence, the schism. Republican supporters who would happily watch Bush blow up little children for the War on Eurasia are turning on him because he won't commit to concentration camps for the brown people.
posted by jellicle at 6:44 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
Since when are all Hispanics brown? Or non-Christian? Nearly all are Christian (Catholic) and many are white. Many are (regrettably) very Catholic. You'd think that the pro-lifers of the US would be psyched to add 12 million (potential) pro-life votes to their ranks, but it just goes to show you when it comes to maintaining the numbers of their race v. the life of a fetus, it's the preservation of their own numerical supremacy they're more concerned about.
What is also irksome is that no one mentions how porous the US-Canadian border is. How come no one bothers to count the numerous illegal Canadians who go in and out of the U.S., who work under the table? They're the ones who really take jobs away from Americans, not the jobs that Americans don't want to do. Yet no one begrudges them, because they sound similar and look similar they are not really visible. The same goes for the countless Europeans who come and overstay the terms of their visa waiver program. They are typically just presumed to be tourists, but many work in big cities in restaurants and so forth.
posted by Azaadistani at 6:47 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
What is also irksome is that no one mentions how porous the US-Canadian border is. How come no one bothers to count the numerous illegal Canadians who go in and out of the U.S., who work under the table? They're the ones who really take jobs away from Americans, not the jobs that Americans don't want to do. Yet no one begrudges them, because they sound similar and look similar they are not really visible. The same goes for the countless Europeans who come and overstay the terms of their visa waiver program. They are typically just presumed to be tourists, but many work in big cities in restaurants and so forth.
posted by Azaadistani at 6:47 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
One point, Azaadistani: Illegal hispanic immigrants don't take jobs that American's won't do. They take jobs that Americans won't do at the wages that businesses can pay illegal immigrants, which are far lower than what you can pay a legal immigrant or citizen.
posted by Justinian at 6:51 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Justinian at 6:51 PM on May 17, 2006
and the multicultural experiment is sacrosant, though it really doesn't seem to be working all that well.
Can you be spesific about how it's not working?
posted by delmoi at 6:52 PM on May 17, 2006
Can you be spesific about how it's not working?
posted by delmoi at 6:52 PM on May 17, 2006
One point, Azaadistani: Illegal hispanic immigrants don't take jobs that American's won't do. They take jobs that Americans won't do at the wages that businesses can pay illegal immigrants, which are far lower than what you can pay a legal immigrant or citizen.
And often can't be paid at all. Employers aren't sitting on an infinite pool of money.
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM on May 17, 2006
And often can't be paid at all. Employers aren't sitting on an infinite pool of money.
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM on May 17, 2006
And that creep Gibson: he's not European or Russian, so his transcontinental concern regarding the dilution of the white populace of Europe and Russia (much of which is in Asia) reveals pure bigotry on his part. There are plenty parts of the world that are overpopulated ... just as white Europeans populated continents outside their own including this one seeking new resources and spaces, the over-populated parts of the world today (e.g., China, South Asia, North Africa) will replenish the depleted stocks in Europe and Russia. The world does not need more babies. It needs less. All that needs to happen is a redeployment of human resources from overpopulated areas to underpopulated areas.
If men like O'Reilly and Gibson feel that races ought not to cross border or continents, they should go back whence their regrettably too-fecund ancestors hailed.
posted by Azaadistani at 6:58 PM on May 17, 2006
If men like O'Reilly and Gibson feel that races ought not to cross border or continents, they should go back whence their regrettably too-fecund ancestors hailed.
posted by Azaadistani at 6:58 PM on May 17, 2006
jellicle: While not all Republicans are racists, it is pretty much true that all racists are Republicans.
That's not even remotely true, and it's a dangerous misconception in that it keeps the members of seemingly progressive organizations from looking critically at their own actions to see if they cause harm. Try taking a look at any major U.S. city (most of which are Democratic) and the policies their governments implement. It doesn't take a research project; just looking at where interstates are built should be convincing enough. If that doesn't do it for you, take a trip to pretty much any liberal city and just start talking to random people.
For a liberal take on the immigration debate that doesn't simply echo Democrat and Republican talking points, this is a nice article.
posted by dsword at 7:00 PM on May 17, 2006
That's not even remotely true, and it's a dangerous misconception in that it keeps the members of seemingly progressive organizations from looking critically at their own actions to see if they cause harm. Try taking a look at any major U.S. city (most of which are Democratic) and the policies their governments implement. It doesn't take a research project; just looking at where interstates are built should be convincing enough. If that doesn't do it for you, take a trip to pretty much any liberal city and just start talking to random people.
For a liberal take on the immigration debate that doesn't simply echo Democrat and Republican talking points, this is a nice article.
posted by dsword at 7:00 PM on May 17, 2006
Delmoi, well, just check out the census data -- income v. race, life expectancy v. race, crime v. race, prison population, etc the constant battle in the media over race (congresswomen "assaulted" by white cops, the proliferation of so-called "hate" crimes, duke lacrosse rape racist charges, ad infinitum).
I mean, really, it may be a horrible reponse on my part (no linkage) but I took the sentiment as obvious. I could, of course, be deluded.
posted by undule at 7:01 PM on May 17, 2006
I mean, really, it may be a horrible reponse on my part (no linkage) but I took the sentiment as obvious. I could, of course, be deluded.
posted by undule at 7:01 PM on May 17, 2006
You know what will solve all this? Miscegination. Seriously, if we all just take time the time to love all people in the most literal sense then this whole thing won't be an issue 'cause there won't be any skin distinctions of any import. Then again, we might all just be Sneeches, and skin color's just the easiet thing we've got to divide us right now. Also I'm a hypocrite because my girlfriend's white. Oh well, it's a fun idea anyway.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 7:04 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 7:04 PM on May 17, 2006
And often can't be paid at all. Employers aren't sitting on an infinite pool of money.
Dammit ! I tought they were amassing profits for the last hundred years or more ? Poor employers, they really need money ! They are not selfish they DONATE work , understand ? They DONATE work they are so generous ! How do you DARE thiking they don't deserve their pool of money ?
posted by elpapacito at 7:04 PM on May 17, 2006
Dammit ! I tought they were amassing profits for the last hundred years or more ? Poor employers, they really need money ! They are not selfish they DONATE work , understand ? They DONATE work they are so generous ! How do you DARE thiking they don't deserve their pool of money ?
posted by elpapacito at 7:04 PM on May 17, 2006
Dude, David Stanton is a good guy. And that is a bad picture of him on their website.
posted by Tullius at 7:06 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Tullius at 7:06 PM on May 17, 2006
...the multicultural experiment is sacrosant, though it really doesn't seem to be working all that well.
Do you mean that 230 year old experiment called the United States? It's been multicultural since it started and isn't going to stop being so anytime soon.
posted by octothorpe at 7:09 PM on May 17, 2006
Do you mean that 230 year old experiment called the United States? It's been multicultural since it started and isn't going to stop being so anytime soon.
posted by octothorpe at 7:09 PM on May 17, 2006
Justinian: Which is precisely why such illegals should be made legal, so that they can no longer be exploited. I'm glad we're on the same page ;-)
In the event that you're not on the same page, let me say that to just punish the illegals is immoral, if those Americans who have hired them all these years are also not given stiff penalties. If an illegal immigrant can be thrown in jail (ostensibly for threatening a born and bred American's job), then so too should the American who is hiring the illegal person, since the hiring citizne is also screwing over his fellow citizens.
posted by Azaadistani at 7:10 PM on May 17, 2006
In the event that you're not on the same page, let me say that to just punish the illegals is immoral, if those Americans who have hired them all these years are also not given stiff penalties. If an illegal immigrant can be thrown in jail (ostensibly for threatening a born and bred American's job), then so too should the American who is hiring the illegal person, since the hiring citizne is also screwing over his fellow citizens.
posted by Azaadistani at 7:10 PM on May 17, 2006
Azaadistani: I'm all for stiff penalties for any corporation or business found to be exploiting cheap illegal labor, if that helps.
There needs to be a multifaceted approach. Immigration laws need to be reformed more into line with the reality of our southern border. We need to start punishing the employers who exploit cheap illegal labor. AND we need to bring the border more under control. I live in the southwest; I've been to the border, and not just the major highway crossings. It's a disaster area. Machine gun toting drug runners are all over the place. I'm not kidding. It's not safe.
Do I think that the current hype about national security is a cover for pandering to a racist Republican voters? Absolutely. Does that mean there isn't a major problem? Nope, there is.
posted by Justinian at 7:20 PM on May 17, 2006
There needs to be a multifaceted approach. Immigration laws need to be reformed more into line with the reality of our southern border. We need to start punishing the employers who exploit cheap illegal labor. AND we need to bring the border more under control. I live in the southwest; I've been to the border, and not just the major highway crossings. It's a disaster area. Machine gun toting drug runners are all over the place. I'm not kidding. It's not safe.
Do I think that the current hype about national security is a cover for pandering to a racist Republican voters? Absolutely. Does that mean there isn't a major problem? Nope, there is.
posted by Justinian at 7:20 PM on May 17, 2006
I love to see these guys shitting their sheets.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:23 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:23 PM on May 17, 2006
Here's the thing that confuses me: This whole illegal immigrant issue seems to have popped up out of nowhere. I mean, it's always been a minor issue simmering on the back burner somewhere, but something or someone has decided it's of the utmost importance in the last few months, and it sure seems like a hot-button issue that's meant to deflect attention from other shit right now.
But maybe that's just me.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:27 PM on May 17, 2006
But maybe that's just me.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:27 PM on May 17, 2006
This whole illegal immigrant issue seems to have popped up out of nowhere...
Its to get the republican base to turn out on election day. Last election it was gay marriage, this time its immigrants. Its fear based politics.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:33 PM on May 17, 2006
Its to get the republican base to turn out on election day. Last election it was gay marriage, this time its immigrants. Its fear based politics.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:33 PM on May 17, 2006
Yes, but it is backfiring, thank god. The Republican base is angry at this plan for not going far enough. Bush can't push for true reform because it would mean angering his moneymen, the corporate backers.
posted by Justinian at 7:39 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Justinian at 7:39 PM on May 17, 2006
Many are (regrettably) very Catholic. You'd think that the pro-lifers of the US would be psyched to add 12 million (potential) pro-life votes to their ranks
Nope -- they're *catholic.* Papists. Evil.
posted by eriko at 7:41 PM on May 17, 2006
Nope -- they're *catholic.* Papists. Evil.
posted by eriko at 7:41 PM on May 17, 2006
What is also irksome is that no one mentions how porous the US-Canadian border is. How come no one bothers to count the numerous illegal Canadians who go in and out of the U.S., who work under the table? They're the ones who really take jobs away from Americans, not the jobs that Americans don't want to do. Yet no one begrudges them, because they sound similar and look similar they are not really visible.
This was the best laugh I've had all day. Please tell me more about these "illegal Canadians". As the elephant said, I'm all ears.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:42 PM on May 17, 2006
This was the best laugh I've had all day. Please tell me more about these "illegal Canadians". As the elephant said, I'm all ears.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:42 PM on May 17, 2006
Wow...amazing, how so many MeFi'ers are completely missing the point of what O'Reilly said and meant. It seems that many of you believe that O'Reilly is advocating a "white/x-tian" power structure, when in fact he's not. He's merely pointing out that the "left" BELIEVES that there is such a structure in place, and that the "left's" solution is to try to push all white/x-tian/hetero men out of power, simply for being white/het/etc.
posted by davidmsc at 7:45 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by davidmsc at 7:45 PM on May 17, 2006
This is the sort of thing that may lead to a serious third party, not a green party or a libertarian party, but an honest-to-god minority party (as opposed to the Democrats who, truth be told, pay lip service during elections but do little to actually positively impact non-whites).
If you think about it, there are a lot of social injustices that directly affect minority in ways that are completely off the table when it comes to the two party system that we currently have. The war on drugs comes to mind along the disproportionate number of black men in prison as a result.
Eventually a strong minority leader will stand up and people will follow him. Someone who is willing to buck the common conventions and bring a different perspective. i only hope that this person has the sense to stay the hell away from either side and speak to the middle.
Because as a white middle class man, i would vote for this person, and i don't think i'm alone.
posted by quin at 7:47 PM on May 17, 2006
If you think about it, there are a lot of social injustices that directly affect minority in ways that are completely off the table when it comes to the two party system that we currently have. The war on drugs comes to mind along the disproportionate number of black men in prison as a result.
Eventually a strong minority leader will stand up and people will follow him. Someone who is willing to buck the common conventions and bring a different perspective. i only hope that this person has the sense to stay the hell away from either side and speak to the middle.
Because as a white middle class man, i would vote for this person, and i don't think i'm alone.
posted by quin at 7:47 PM on May 17, 2006
Wow...amazing, how so many MeFi'ers are completely missing the point of what O'Reilly said and meant. It seems that many of you believe that O'Reilly is advocating a "white/x-tian" power structure, when in fact he's not. He's merely pointing out that the "left" BELIEVES that there is such a structure in place, and that the "left's" solution is to try to push all white/x-tian/hetero men out of power, simply for being white/het/etc.
You know, I'm paging through my 'Leftist Guide to Hating Whitey and Heteros' and I'm not seeing the relevant passages re: believing in that structure.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:51 PM on May 17, 2006
You know, I'm paging through my 'Leftist Guide to Hating Whitey and Heteros' and I'm not seeing the relevant passages re: believing in that structure.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:51 PM on May 17, 2006
And often can't be paid at all. Employers aren't sitting on an infinite pool of money.
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM PST on May 17
If the business model can't compete legally, is it a viable business model?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:53 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM PST on May 17
If the business model can't compete legally, is it a viable business model?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:53 PM on May 17, 2006
davidmsc writes: He's merely pointing out that the "left" BELIEVES
And he's just guy to know what the "left" BELIEVES, isn't he? It's not as if he only invites them on his show to interrupt them, belittle them, require them to fend off one offensive accusation after another and ultimately, cut off their mikes.
No, he listens respecfully and takes notes, and that's what makes him an authority.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:54 PM on May 17, 2006
And he's just guy to know what the "left" BELIEVES, isn't he? It's not as if he only invites them on his show to interrupt them, belittle them, require them to fend off one offensive accusation after another and ultimately, cut off their mikes.
No, he listens respecfully and takes notes, and that's what makes him an authority.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:54 PM on May 17, 2006
You know, I'm paging through my 'Leftist Guide to Hating Whitey and Heteros'
You're reading from an outdated guidebook comrade. Maintaining an up to date collection of party literature is every citizens responsibility!
posted by slatternus at 7:58 PM on May 17, 2006
You're reading from an outdated guidebook comrade. Maintaining an up to date collection of party literature is every citizens responsibility!
posted by slatternus at 7:58 PM on May 17, 2006
Given the number of ways white heterosexual Christian men have completely fucked up our country, hell yes, get them out of power.
posted by fandango_matt at 8:07 PM PST on May 17
Damn. I was being told it is all the fault of the Monied Interests. That and Corporations.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:21 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by fandango_matt at 8:07 PM PST on May 17
Damn. I was being told it is all the fault of the Monied Interests. That and Corporations.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:21 PM on May 17, 2006
Given the number of ways white heterosexual Christian men have completely fucked up our country, hell yes, get them out of power.
And turn to what model in which "non-white" countries? Mexico? Egypt? Zimbabwe? (Japan maybe) but anyway, it's the attitude you display above to which O'Reilly is speaks -- and it's not all that rare in even center-left thinkers. There seems to be a great shame most liberals/leftists feel in the accomplishments of "white" culture and no pride whatsoever in the heritage of the Western world. It seems natural for a conservative to bristle. I bristle a little myself.
Do you mean that 230 year old experiment called the United States? It's been multicultural since it started and isn't going to stop being so anytime soon.
Yes, that's the experiment I'm referring to as not working out so hot. It was multicultural to the extent that Christo-Western Europeans imported a bunch of African slaves, yes. And that worked out so very awesome for everyone concerned.
posted by undule at 8:25 PM on May 17, 2006
And turn to what model in which "non-white" countries? Mexico? Egypt? Zimbabwe? (Japan maybe) but anyway, it's the attitude you display above to which O'Reilly is speaks -- and it's not all that rare in even center-left thinkers. There seems to be a great shame most liberals/leftists feel in the accomplishments of "white" culture and no pride whatsoever in the heritage of the Western world. It seems natural for a conservative to bristle. I bristle a little myself.
Do you mean that 230 year old experiment called the United States? It's been multicultural since it started and isn't going to stop being so anytime soon.
Yes, that's the experiment I'm referring to as not working out so hot. It was multicultural to the extent that Christo-Western Europeans imported a bunch of African slaves, yes. And that worked out so very awesome for everyone concerned.
posted by undule at 8:25 PM on May 17, 2006
> Senate approves more fencing ....
Nitwits. Have they forgotten who always wins at fencing?
posted by hank at 8:28 PM on May 17, 2006
Nitwits. Have they forgotten who always wins at fencing?
posted by hank at 8:28 PM on May 17, 2006
Wow...amazing, how so many MeFi'ers are completely missing the point of what O'Reilly blah blah pbbbblt
No, I think I correctly interpreted what Bill O'Reilly was trying to say. He's trying to say he's got a piping-hot case of jungle fever. He enjoys a butt you could serve tea on. He is, as they say, never going back.
You disagree?
Well, I'm probably more qualified to interpret what Bill O'Reilly really wants as Bill O'Reilly is qualified to interpret the left.
Seriously. The man's a stump-humpin' rockheaded lackwit. He's got all the debating finesse of a 3rd string backyard pro wrestler on a Mickey's bender. He's about as sharp as a soggy condom. Not one, not two but three whole bricks shy of an outhouse. I could continue onward in such a manner for pages on end, but I'll spare the gentle reader and consider my point delivered.
Really. It's like you could replace his head with an empty lead box and no one would even notice.
posted by loquacious at 8:32 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
No, I think I correctly interpreted what Bill O'Reilly was trying to say. He's trying to say he's got a piping-hot case of jungle fever. He enjoys a butt you could serve tea on. He is, as they say, never going back.
You disagree?
Well, I'm probably more qualified to interpret what Bill O'Reilly really wants as Bill O'Reilly is qualified to interpret the left.
Seriously. The man's a stump-humpin' rockheaded lackwit. He's got all the debating finesse of a 3rd string backyard pro wrestler on a Mickey's bender. He's about as sharp as a soggy condom. Not one, not two but three whole bricks shy of an outhouse. I could continue onward in such a manner for pages on end, but I'll spare the gentle reader and consider my point delivered.
Really. It's like you could replace his head with an empty lead box and no one would even notice.
posted by loquacious at 8:32 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
Stinkycheese: Below are a few examples of illegal immigration from the Canadian border. Canadians who cross the border are not here illegal, so they won't qualify. However, if they work without TN visa authorization they are here illegally, but who is concerned about the counting them? The same goes for Europeans/Aussies, etc., who are allowed to stay for longish periods of time legally. If they become illegal, do you think anyone is going to stop them and find out?
here is a link that speaks about historical illegal immigration across the Canadian border: http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/fall/us-canada-immigration-records-1.html
Here's an example of illegal immigration today from Canada:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/12/human.smugglers/index.html
posted by Azaadistani at 8:35 PM on May 17, 2006
here is a link that speaks about historical illegal immigration across the Canadian border: http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/fall/us-canada-immigration-records-1.html
Here's an example of illegal immigration today from Canada:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/12/human.smugglers/index.html
posted by Azaadistani at 8:35 PM on May 17, 2006
Loquacious, I'm pretty sure most agree with your opinion on O'Rielly -- he's a shitbox, for sure. But what makes him so infuriating is the occasional swing in the dark that lands on target.
It's an interesting phenomena, really, bile-ridden mostly; tho I must confess I never watch his show and only hear or see snippets via Stewart or Franken -- hardly unbiased observers. Franken used to have readings from a novel Reilly had written -- something about "snorkel man" and standing at attention, unnatural acts, read by the man himself. Pure gold.
posted by undule at 8:40 PM on May 17, 2006
It's an interesting phenomena, really, bile-ridden mostly; tho I must confess I never watch his show and only hear or see snippets via Stewart or Franken -- hardly unbiased observers. Franken used to have readings from a novel Reilly had written -- something about "snorkel man" and standing at attention, unnatural acts, read by the man himself. Pure gold.
posted by undule at 8:40 PM on May 17, 2006
Yes, that's the experiment I'm referring to as not working out so hot. It was multicultural to the extent that Christo-Western Europeans imported a bunch of African slaves, yes. And that worked out so very awesome for everyone concerned.
We'll just let that sit there for a moment . . .
There were some people here first, you know. And the ancestors of today's Latino "illegal" immigrants include a large dose of the DNA of the people who were here before there was a fucking border.
This nation assimilated far larger numbers of people from far more diverse backgrounds between 1850 and 1930 than it has had to do in the last few decades. They spoke more languages, practiced more religions, came from deeper and more desperate poverty. What we learned was that the people with the get up and go to move their lives and make a better future were the some of the hardest working and most driven people from the societies that fed our growth. It is not small thing to claim this is an immigrant nation. And the ones already here have always despised the ones behind them on the long march. They show the (recent) "natives" up as lazy ignorant slobs.
The Mexicans who work in my neighborhood work like dogs for little pay, with that same gleam in their eyes that millions have had before them. They are raising families, buying property, and taking care of their own communities. They are already on their way to making great Americans. The white trash fuckers who despise them for their moxie should look in the mirror to see something lazy, pathetic, ignorant, and caught up in petty things.
I'd trade 20 white power minuteman motherfuckers for one little guy from Puebla, any day, if I was building a new country. America turns these folks away at great peril to her own future.
Even the European ancestors of the Latino immigrants were here before almost any of the European lineages that yield the greater white U S of A.
But never forget this country was multiculutral before it was a country, or a colony, or even a gleam in the eye of a jackass Italian sailor. There were hundreds of languages spoken here, and as many religions. White Europeans (with their black slaves) were not projected onto a blank screen. They had to commit genocide first to lay claim to the place.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:06 PM on May 17, 2006
We'll just let that sit there for a moment . . .
There were some people here first, you know. And the ancestors of today's Latino "illegal" immigrants include a large dose of the DNA of the people who were here before there was a fucking border.
This nation assimilated far larger numbers of people from far more diverse backgrounds between 1850 and 1930 than it has had to do in the last few decades. They spoke more languages, practiced more religions, came from deeper and more desperate poverty. What we learned was that the people with the get up and go to move their lives and make a better future were the some of the hardest working and most driven people from the societies that fed our growth. It is not small thing to claim this is an immigrant nation. And the ones already here have always despised the ones behind them on the long march. They show the (recent) "natives" up as lazy ignorant slobs.
The Mexicans who work in my neighborhood work like dogs for little pay, with that same gleam in their eyes that millions have had before them. They are raising families, buying property, and taking care of their own communities. They are already on their way to making great Americans. The white trash fuckers who despise them for their moxie should look in the mirror to see something lazy, pathetic, ignorant, and caught up in petty things.
I'd trade 20 white power minuteman motherfuckers for one little guy from Puebla, any day, if I was building a new country. America turns these folks away at great peril to her own future.
Even the European ancestors of the Latino immigrants were here before almost any of the European lineages that yield the greater white U S of A.
But never forget this country was multiculutral before it was a country, or a colony, or even a gleam in the eye of a jackass Italian sailor. There were hundreds of languages spoken here, and as many religions. White Europeans (with their black slaves) were not projected onto a blank screen. They had to commit genocide first to lay claim to the place.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:06 PM on May 17, 2006
What I'd like to do, and you can check me on this, is beat Gibson and/or O'Reilly until I'm winded. Not the out of breath tired when you do wind sprints, I mean the side stitching agony from hard cardiovascular exertion for a long period of time.
My fists would be raw and you would see cartilage sticking out from my otherwised very calloused knuckles. True muscle burn from the tricep through the lats and the shoulders. I'd like my pectorals to be shot with tremors from the strain.
I'm talking about delivering the kind of legendary pummeling spoken of in hushed awes by brick built mob enforcers and elite interrogators in the corner rooms and kitchens when the powerful men are talking business.
What's this about lefty zealots and white Christians?
Meh, whatever.
Maybe I'd wear brass knuckles...nah, it would take me away from the feel of fist on viscera, Doc Martens maybe...
*goes off in violent fantasy land*
posted by Smedleyman at 9:08 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
My fists would be raw and you would see cartilage sticking out from my otherwised very calloused knuckles. True muscle burn from the tricep through the lats and the shoulders. I'd like my pectorals to be shot with tremors from the strain.
I'm talking about delivering the kind of legendary pummeling spoken of in hushed awes by brick built mob enforcers and elite interrogators in the corner rooms and kitchens when the powerful men are talking business.
What's this about lefty zealots and white Christians?
Meh, whatever.
Maybe I'd wear brass knuckles...nah, it would take me away from the feel of fist on viscera, Doc Martens maybe...
*goes off in violent fantasy land*
posted by Smedleyman at 9:08 PM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
(fourcheesemac appears to be one of the few people with any understand of what the culture part of multiculturalism means. bravo!)
posted by Jimbob at 9:15 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Jimbob at 9:15 PM on May 17, 2006
Undule: You are asserting that all the immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries were unicultural? That the differences between Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians, Scots, Germans, and all the other peoples who emigrated to America in that time period weren't as real and as meaningful as the differences between a Mexican and the average American today?
You need to read up on history. The United States was the most multicultural country on earth in the early 19th century.
posted by Justinian at 9:19 PM on May 17, 2006
You need to read up on history. The United States was the most multicultural country on earth in the early 19th century.
posted by Justinian at 9:19 PM on May 17, 2006
Here's the thing that confuses me: This whole illegal immigrant issue seems to have popped up out of nowhere. I mean, it's always been a minor issue simmering on the back burner somewhere, but something or someone has decided it's of the utmost importance in the last few month
It really started with the MinuteMen project, IMO. And Lou Dobbs constant drumbeating. Seriously every episode of that show featured something about illegal immigration, for at least a year.
But it's been only in the past few months that the republican majority has started to notice that has electoral legs. Unfortunately, someone forgot to poll the Mexicans, many of whom are legal and can vote.
Republicans are about to lock themselves out of the Latino vote the way they have the Black vote and even the gay vote now (before the FMA gay people would vote for republicans every once in a while. But Latin voters were actually likely to vote for republicans, and the republicans were really gunning for them. Oops.)
posted by delmoi at 9:25 PM on May 17, 2006
It really started with the MinuteMen project, IMO. And Lou Dobbs constant drumbeating. Seriously every episode of that show featured something about illegal immigration, for at least a year.
But it's been only in the past few months that the republican majority has started to notice that has electoral legs. Unfortunately, someone forgot to poll the Mexicans, many of whom are legal and can vote.
Republicans are about to lock themselves out of the Latino vote the way they have the Black vote and even the gay vote now (before the FMA gay people would vote for republicans every once in a while. But Latin voters were actually likely to vote for republicans, and the republicans were really gunning for them. Oops.)
posted by delmoi at 9:25 PM on May 17, 2006
Loquacious and Smedleyman,
You fellers are keeping it real for me. I thank you. You both have an icy cold stoli bump and a rage burrito on account with me any time you want to claim them. Oh fourcheese mac as well, I got a whole damn marble cheeseplate just sitting here for you. Well done.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:37 PM on May 17, 2006
You fellers are keeping it real for me. I thank you. You both have an icy cold stoli bump and a rage burrito on account with me any time you want to claim them. Oh fourcheese mac as well, I got a whole damn marble cheeseplate just sitting here for you. Well done.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:37 PM on May 17, 2006
Delmoi, well, just check out the census data -- income v. race, life expectancy v. race, crime v. race, prison population, etc the constant battle in the media over race (congresswomen "assaulted" by white cops, the proliferation of so-called "hate" crimes, duke lacrosse rape racist charges, ad infinitum).
That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that because all races are not equal in statistical measure the "multicultural experiment failed", well, what exactly is the multicultural experiment? And what would ending the multicultural experiment entail? Returning to segregation? Ending affirmative action? Either one of those actions, clearly, would make those statistics even worse.
And turn to what model in which "non-white" countries? Mexico? Egypt? Zimbabwe? (Japan maybe) but anyway, it's the attitude you display above to which O'Reilly is speaks -- and it's not all that rare in even center-left thinkers.
Perhaps we could follow the model of Nazi Germany? A model of "white" governance if there ever was one. And there are plenty of "white run" shitholes in eastern Europe today. Would you rather live in China or Kazakhstan? Brazil or Turkmenistan? Japan or Estonia?
The global economic inequity is mostly due to the scientific flowering in Europe in the 16 and 1700s Before that the Arab an Chinese cultures were vastly greater then those in Europe.
That's only 400 years or so, and there's no reason it couldn't flip around again like it has many times in history. European colonialism in that time probably had a lot to do with fucking things up quite generally in the rest of the world as well. Japan and China wouldn't have needed to "recover" from WWII if we hadn't started it (although you could make the case that Japan was responsible for that as well. Anyway)
posted by delmoi at 9:37 PM on May 17, 2006
That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that because all races are not equal in statistical measure the "multicultural experiment failed", well, what exactly is the multicultural experiment? And what would ending the multicultural experiment entail? Returning to segregation? Ending affirmative action? Either one of those actions, clearly, would make those statistics even worse.
And turn to what model in which "non-white" countries? Mexico? Egypt? Zimbabwe? (Japan maybe) but anyway, it's the attitude you display above to which O'Reilly is speaks -- and it's not all that rare in even center-left thinkers.
Perhaps we could follow the model of Nazi Germany? A model of "white" governance if there ever was one. And there are plenty of "white run" shitholes in eastern Europe today. Would you rather live in China or Kazakhstan? Brazil or Turkmenistan? Japan or Estonia?
The global economic inequity is mostly due to the scientific flowering in Europe in the 16 and 1700s Before that the Arab an Chinese cultures were vastly greater then those in Europe.
That's only 400 years or so, and there's no reason it couldn't flip around again like it has many times in history. European colonialism in that time probably had a lot to do with fucking things up quite generally in the rest of the world as well. Japan and China wouldn't have needed to "recover" from WWII if we hadn't started it (although you could make the case that Japan was responsible for that as well. Anyway)
posted by delmoi at 9:37 PM on May 17, 2006
I got a whole damn marble cheeseplate just sitting here for you.
On my way, thanks dude.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:38 PM on May 17, 2006
On my way, thanks dude.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:38 PM on May 17, 2006
Ice cold Stoli shot much appreciated. Summer has officially begun out here in Phoenix, AZ - Valley of the Spun.
posted by loquacious at 9:56 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by loquacious at 9:56 PM on May 17, 2006
I disagree with the idea that just removing white, heterosexual men from power is going to solve any problems, because I am a white, heterosexual male. I am aware of the privileges I have had, partially because of my background, partially because of my skin color and sexual preference, but those privileges do not limit my ability to help others.
We like to draw arbirtrary lines in the sand if you will, even homogenous to outsider ethnic groups, such as the Japanese, have massive racial divisions within the culture. Just ask the Okinawans. Or ask the residents of Nothern Ireland about it, a bunch of White Christian people who have yet to get along because of supposedly different facets of the same religion. If you dig deeper, and you can always dig deeper, you can see how complicated the causes of the conflicts are. And then you realize that it doesn't even make sense, and people are fighting over imagined histories, not actual history in most cases.
posted by mrzarquon at 12:11 AM on May 18, 2006
We like to draw arbirtrary lines in the sand if you will, even homogenous to outsider ethnic groups, such as the Japanese, have massive racial divisions within the culture. Just ask the Okinawans. Or ask the residents of Nothern Ireland about it, a bunch of White Christian people who have yet to get along because of supposedly different facets of the same religion. If you dig deeper, and you can always dig deeper, you can see how complicated the causes of the conflicts are. And then you realize that it doesn't even make sense, and people are fighting over imagined histories, not actual history in most cases.
posted by mrzarquon at 12:11 AM on May 18, 2006
Then there's John Gibson's call for more white babies
I saw this on the Daily Show last night, and I was literally rocked back in my seat. Eyes wide, head cocked in shock.
What the hell is wrong with your country that there are (what I assume to be) media personalities of some notoriety saying shit like that?
I'm not advocating curtailment of freedom of speech, but holy bungiejumping fuck -- how is it that scum like that get on the air?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:51 AM on May 18, 2006
I saw this on the Daily Show last night, and I was literally rocked back in my seat. Eyes wide, head cocked in shock.
What the hell is wrong with your country that there are (what I assume to be) media personalities of some notoriety saying shit like that?
I'm not advocating curtailment of freedom of speech, but holy bungiejumping fuck -- how is it that scum like that get on the air?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:51 AM on May 18, 2006
Japan and China wouldn't have needed to "recover" from WWII if we hadn't started it
you mean the part where we invaded manchuria in 1931? ... no, wait, japan did that ...
in any case, it's obvious to me that things are getting pretty ugly in this country ... the gloves are off now ... people like o'reilly are now using race as a wedge issue ... and they're the ones who are causing the bitter divisions that are widening
posted by pyramid termite at 12:57 AM on May 18, 2006
you mean the part where we invaded manchuria in 1931? ... no, wait, japan did that ...
in any case, it's obvious to me that things are getting pretty ugly in this country ... the gloves are off now ... people like o'reilly are now using race as a wedge issue ... and they're the ones who are causing the bitter divisions that are widening
posted by pyramid termite at 12:57 AM on May 18, 2006
Undule: You are asserting that all the immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries were unicultural? You need to read up on history. The United States was the most multicultural country on earth in the early 19th century.
posted by Justinian
No, actually. I said they were all from Western Europe, and the majority Christian. Which is true.I've read plenty of history, tho thanks for the invite. The analog can certainly be made between 19th century immigrants and the current situation, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme.
And delmoi, for chrissakes, the conversation is simply about hatin' on the whites in favor of -- what exactly? I'm not suggesting anything other than that maybe this foamy-mouthed right has a leg to stand on when they give voice to thier frustrations. As for my statistical citing, as such, I was merely pointing out the we aren't melting very well. I'm not making any assertions about racial superiority or soapboxing for legislation.
re: Germany, aw c'mon, wtf. I hear suggestions about how white europeans blow at governing and Western heritage is such horrible crap etc etc. Well what do we want to replace it with? It's a humble question, proferred earnestly -- calling Nazi's out as an alternative is kind of dumb. Are you saying all white establishments are Nazi? I'm not actually sure what you're saying there.
And for the record, fourcheesemac states things very well - and I agree on most points.
posted by undule at 1:08 AM on May 18, 2006
posted by Justinian
No, actually. I said they were all from Western Europe, and the majority Christian. Which is true.I've read plenty of history, tho thanks for the invite. The analog can certainly be made between 19th century immigrants and the current situation, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme.
And delmoi, for chrissakes, the conversation is simply about hatin' on the whites in favor of -- what exactly? I'm not suggesting anything other than that maybe this foamy-mouthed right has a leg to stand on when they give voice to thier frustrations. As for my statistical citing, as such, I was merely pointing out the we aren't melting very well. I'm not making any assertions about racial superiority or soapboxing for legislation.
re: Germany, aw c'mon, wtf. I hear suggestions about how white europeans blow at governing and Western heritage is such horrible crap etc etc. Well what do we want to replace it with? It's a humble question, proferred earnestly -- calling Nazi's out as an alternative is kind of dumb. Are you saying all white establishments are Nazi? I'm not actually sure what you're saying there.
And for the record, fourcheesemac states things very well - and I agree on most points.
posted by undule at 1:08 AM on May 18, 2006
hey stavros, what's wrong with what gibson said exactly? Would you feel the same if a black man was asking for more colored babies? Or a rabbi for more Jewish babies?
The implied offense seems to be that he wants to keep the minorities as minorites, so his race doesn't lose power and cultural influence. Isn't this basically a sound strategy, both in a social and evolutionary sense?
But yeah, it was kind of shocking to hear it stated so offhandedly, fulsome honey to the Fox viewer, essentially.
posted by undule at 1:17 AM on May 18, 2006
The implied offense seems to be that he wants to keep the minorities as minorites, so his race doesn't lose power and cultural influence. Isn't this basically a sound strategy, both in a social and evolutionary sense?
But yeah, it was kind of shocking to hear it stated so offhandedly, fulsome honey to the Fox viewer, essentially.
posted by undule at 1:17 AM on May 18, 2006
hey stavros, what's wrong with what gibson said exactly? Would you feel the same if a black man was asking for more colored babies? Or a rabbi for more Jewish babies?
Why yes, yes I would. Perhaps not precisely, of course, but in all ways that are germane.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:28 AM on May 18, 2006
Why yes, yes I would. Perhaps not precisely, of course, but in all ways that are germane.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:28 AM on May 18, 2006
What we learned was that the people with the get up and go to move their lives and make a better future were the some of the hardest working and most driven people from the societies that fed our growth.
Without a shred of a doubt, but please consider that they come from a desperate poverty. They had a double motivation : the stick was poverty, beating them into misery , the carrot was the hope of something better. For instace if you earn $1 day, earning $ 1.10/day is still a 10% increase for the same work. A pauper will always look at the .10 and not look at the additional risks that may be hidden, like leaving something known for the unknown.
Remember that only success are registered, failures are removed. Errors are also removed, we don't like to think we were wrong and that we lost, we just move on. Regardless, the error remains.
The Mexicans who work in my neighborhood work like dogs for little pay
And that's moral ? Question yourself, why do you think this is good ? This show character ? This shows goodwill ? Working and producing shows will and desire to survive, working hard shows your interest is really in working and you learn to tolerate fatigue because the same working trained you to tolerate work better ; working hard and for cheap shows you are desperate and don't care if you are paid less then already present locals.
I'd trade 20 white power minuteman motherfuckers for one little guy from Puebla, any day,
No you wouldn't, one guy can't do the job of twenty people ; more likely you would hire 10 guys from pueblo to replace 20-25 less hard working minuteman, but it's only a rule of thumb, you may getting slackers from Pueblo as well.
Consider it from the point of view of my fellow economists : human = workforce. We don't care about color, religion, race, ethnicity, whatever. We only care how much work we can extract from you and at what cost. If a bunch of Gnappalari is willing to work 10 hours-day at a steady rate and get paid 1/2 of what I should pay you, you are SO FIRED or you are so not hired. If your government refues, we will export work there.
It has nothing to do with the fact you were a good worked and did a good job, because some of my other colleagues are figuring out ways to extract value from the older workers as well, as you are comparatively richer then peons. Enriched peons have a problem, they still are mental peons and are gullible ! That is why poor people in the recent past invested into education for their childrens, in hope they would escape the problems coming with ignorance.
Enter private schools :) We give you more value for the buck..but you are ignorant , we know, so we will let you pay twice for what you would get from a public school. To further give you an incentive we will ruin the public system so that the private looks comparatively better. WOW ! What a deal ! Camyonero !
posted by elpapacito at 3:05 AM on May 18, 2006
Without a shred of a doubt, but please consider that they come from a desperate poverty. They had a double motivation : the stick was poverty, beating them into misery , the carrot was the hope of something better. For instace if you earn $1 day, earning $ 1.10/day is still a 10% increase for the same work. A pauper will always look at the .10 and not look at the additional risks that may be hidden, like leaving something known for the unknown.
Remember that only success are registered, failures are removed. Errors are also removed, we don't like to think we were wrong and that we lost, we just move on. Regardless, the error remains.
The Mexicans who work in my neighborhood work like dogs for little pay
And that's moral ? Question yourself, why do you think this is good ? This show character ? This shows goodwill ? Working and producing shows will and desire to survive, working hard shows your interest is really in working and you learn to tolerate fatigue because the same working trained you to tolerate work better ; working hard and for cheap shows you are desperate and don't care if you are paid less then already present locals.
I'd trade 20 white power minuteman motherfuckers for one little guy from Puebla, any day,
No you wouldn't, one guy can't do the job of twenty people ; more likely you would hire 10 guys from pueblo to replace 20-25 less hard working minuteman, but it's only a rule of thumb, you may getting slackers from Pueblo as well.
Consider it from the point of view of my fellow economists : human = workforce. We don't care about color, religion, race, ethnicity, whatever. We only care how much work we can extract from you and at what cost. If a bunch of Gnappalari is willing to work 10 hours-day at a steady rate and get paid 1/2 of what I should pay you, you are SO FIRED or you are so not hired. If your government refues, we will export work there.
It has nothing to do with the fact you were a good worked and did a good job, because some of my other colleagues are figuring out ways to extract value from the older workers as well, as you are comparatively richer then peons. Enriched peons have a problem, they still are mental peons and are gullible ! That is why poor people in the recent past invested into education for their childrens, in hope they would escape the problems coming with ignorance.
Enter private schools :) We give you more value for the buck..but you are ignorant , we know, so we will let you pay twice for what you would get from a public school. To further give you an incentive we will ruin the public system so that the private looks comparatively better. WOW ! What a deal ! Camyonero !
posted by elpapacito at 3:05 AM on May 18, 2006
I'm not suggesting anything other than that maybe this foamy-mouthed right has a leg to stand on when they give voice to thier frustrations.
What "leg to stand on"? You sure do use a lot of euphemisms? Are you saying it's OK for the right to want to control the racial ratios of the country? Are you saying that it really is better to have more white people because white people are better then other types of people?
posted by delmoi at 5:17 AM on May 18, 2006
What "leg to stand on"? You sure do use a lot of euphemisms? Are you saying it's OK for the right to want to control the racial ratios of the country? Are you saying that it really is better to have more white people because white people are better then other types of people?
posted by delmoi at 5:17 AM on May 18, 2006
On yesterday's Tony Snow Tar Baby thread I opined that thgis type of racist language was par for the course in Republican circles, and that Snow probably slipped up thiking he was just following acceptable talking points. Brundlefly soberly suspected me of conspiratorial thinking - well justified.
Now I am back to my tin foil hat. The Republicans have decided to push the racial wedge in a bit deeper and see how it plays to "the base." (Heck, Willie Horton worked for Papa!)
From Tom Tommorow: If you always assume that the administration is lying and that things are much worse than you’re being told, you will rarely be proven wrong.
posted by zaelic at 5:34 AM on May 18, 2006
Now I am back to my tin foil hat. The Republicans have decided to push the racial wedge in a bit deeper and see how it plays to "the base." (Heck, Willie Horton worked for Papa!)
From Tom Tommorow: If you always assume that the administration is lying and that things are much worse than you’re being told, you will rarely be proven wrong.
posted by zaelic at 5:34 AM on May 18, 2006
I feel late to the party, but anyone ever read Discourse on Colonialism by Aime Cesaire? It was written in the 50s, and is a critique aimed at Europe, but much of what he says is very applicable to the United States today.
Also, is anyone shocked by this? These guys are idiots. Most of the people who watch the show and eat this stuff up are idiots too.
posted by chunking express at 6:32 AM on May 18, 2006
Also, is anyone shocked by this? These guys are idiots. Most of the people who watch the show and eat this stuff up are idiots too.
posted by chunking express at 6:32 AM on May 18, 2006
"What "leg to stand on"? You sure do use a lot of euphemisms? Are you saying it's OK for the right to want to control the racial ratios of the country? Are you saying that it really is better to have more white people because white people are better then other types of people?"
delmoi doesn't care about white people.
Many white people feel under attack and when you read things like this you get a better understanding of why they feel this way.
posted by MikeMc at 6:46 AM on May 18, 2006
delmoi doesn't care about white people.
Many white people feel under attack and when you read things like this you get a better understanding of why they feel this way.
posted by MikeMc at 6:46 AM on May 18, 2006
"Perhaps not precisely, of course, but in all ways that are germane."
The goddamned Germans got nothin' to do with it!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:22 AM on May 18, 2006
The goddamned Germans got nothin' to do with it!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:22 AM on May 18, 2006
Many white people feel under attack and when you read things like this you get a better understanding of why they feel this way.
What exactly is objectionable in that article? It sounds well reasoned to me.
posted by chunking express at 7:37 AM on May 18, 2006
What exactly is objectionable in that article? It sounds well reasoned to me.
posted by chunking express at 7:37 AM on May 18, 2006
I'm surprised that no one in your country has suggested killing two birds with one stone by giving illegal immigrants citizenship if they agree to enlist in the military for four years or so. This is what I would expect to hear from your nutty right-wing as a sort of 'compromise'.
posted by dobie at 7:43 AM on May 18, 2006
posted by dobie at 7:43 AM on May 18, 2006
What is also irksome is that no one mentions how porous the US-Canadian border is.
Especially during a War on Terror where a terrorist attack was intercepted at the Canadian border. And it wasn't the first time.
calling Nazi's out as an alternative is kind of dumb
Not according to this guy, who said, "if the Germans could move 6 million Jews, we can certainly move 12 million Mexicans." He doesn't advocate following the Nazis' example of killing people, just emulating their people-moving skills. "Before they killed the Jews, the National Socialists had to identify them and transport them."
posted by kirkaracha at 7:55 AM on May 18, 2006
From MikeMc's link:
Cultural Racism:
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
I don't see how the text I bolded above is reasonable. But I could be wrong.
posted by The Castle at 8:10 AM on May 18, 2006
Cultural Racism:
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
I don't see how the text I bolded above is reasonable. But I could be wrong.
posted by The Castle at 8:10 AM on May 18, 2006
The Castle, agreed; though, that doesn't seem to be something White people alone should be afraid of, no?
posted by chunking express at 8:13 AM on May 18, 2006
posted by chunking express at 8:13 AM on May 18, 2006
I think what Seattle Schools is trying to convey is that there are more ways of looking at the world than just one. For instance (they say), it is good to recognise that some things many white Americans take for granted (linear time construction as opposed to circular; individualistic pull yerself up by the bootstraps thinking as opposed to we're all in this together what's good for the society is good for me collectivist thinking) are not the only ways of looking at the world. Yet, American society works in such a way that these views are taken for granted, thus excluding ways of looking at and analysing the world that are based on different viewpoints.
I think people like O'Reilly take for granted that the way he and 'his kind' do things is inherently better. I see the Seattle Schools as trying to remind its staff that there are multiple good ways of doing things. Yes, perhaps it comes off as a little pomo, but I still think it's an interesting point to bear in mind at times, especially when one is dealing with many different children from many different places.
[ducks]
also, p.s. to ZoZo:
I think that "O'Reilly [heart symbol]s white Christians" comes up as "O'Reilly [pipe]s white Christians" on some computers.
posted by mosessis at 8:32 AM on May 18, 2006
I think people like O'Reilly take for granted that the way he and 'his kind' do things is inherently better. I see the Seattle Schools as trying to remind its staff that there are multiple good ways of doing things. Yes, perhaps it comes off as a little pomo, but I still think it's an interesting point to bear in mind at times, especially when one is dealing with many different children from many different places.
[ducks]
also, p.s. to ZoZo:
I think that "O'Reilly [heart symbol]s white Christians" comes up as "O'Reilly [pipe]s white Christians" on some computers.
posted by mosessis at 8:32 AM on May 18, 2006
The Castle,
Conceptions of time are not innate. There are examples of very different ideas about time in different cultures, including a change in European/white cultures during the industrial era. I assume that is what the statement refers to.
Ideas about the value of individualism also vary cross-culturally, although I think early social scientists overstated the distinction between "white" and "other" cultures on this front. However, you can see a change in the ideology of individualism even in the United States over the last 100 years; it is clearly a malleable thing.
So the statement that you quoted is saying that suggesting that "white" conceptions of time or of individualism are better or more "normal" or more morally correct than other conceptions of time or ideologies of individuality is a form of cultural racism.
Hope that helps...
posted by carmen at 8:49 AM on May 18, 2006
Conceptions of time are not innate. There are examples of very different ideas about time in different cultures, including a change in European/white cultures during the industrial era. I assume that is what the statement refers to.
Ideas about the value of individualism also vary cross-culturally, although I think early social scientists overstated the distinction between "white" and "other" cultures on this front. However, you can see a change in the ideology of individualism even in the United States over the last 100 years; it is clearly a malleable thing.
So the statement that you quoted is saying that suggesting that "white" conceptions of time or of individualism are better or more "normal" or more morally correct than other conceptions of time or ideologies of individuality is a form of cultural racism.
Hope that helps...
posted by carmen at 8:49 AM on May 18, 2006
"I see the Seattle Schools as trying to remind its staff that there are multiple good ways of doing things."
Read all of the definitions again...but this time try to put yourself in a slightly (?) paranoid frame of mind. The case could be made that SPS is declaring things that most white people take for granted as "normal" are wrong and oppressive to those that the white power structure defines as "other". "...having a future time orientation,..." this one really stands out, as if white people use schedules to oppress people of color. There's nothing wrong with wanting everyone be treated equally but this is just over the top.
posted by MikeMc at 8:59 AM on May 18, 2006
Read all of the definitions again...but this time try to put yourself in a slightly (?) paranoid frame of mind. The case could be made that SPS is declaring things that most white people take for granted as "normal" are wrong and oppressive to those that the white power structure defines as "other". "...having a future time orientation,..." this one really stands out, as if white people use schedules to oppress people of color. There's nothing wrong with wanting everyone be treated equally but this is just over the top.
posted by MikeMc at 8:59 AM on May 18, 2006
"Conceptions of time are not innate. There are examples of very different ideas about time in different cultures,..."
But here in the United States we have pretty much settled on hours, minutes, days etc....
I've heard this reasoning before (that fixed schedules can be discriminatory to minority students as they often come from unstructured environments) but you have draw the line somewhere. You may think all concepts of time are equally valid but I assure you most employers do not.
posted by MikeMc at 9:11 AM on May 18, 2006
But here in the United States we have pretty much settled on hours, minutes, days etc....
I've heard this reasoning before (that fixed schedules can be discriminatory to minority students as they often come from unstructured environments) but you have draw the line somewhere. You may think all concepts of time are equally valid but I assure you most employers do not.
posted by MikeMc at 9:11 AM on May 18, 2006
undule: No, actually. I said they were all from Western Europe, and the majority Christian. Which is true.I've read plenty of history, tho thanks for the invite. The analog can certainly be made between 19th century immigrants and the current situation, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme.
Except that this concept of a unified "Christian" and "Western European" culture is really a product of the second half of the 20th century. Go back a few generations and Teddy Rosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were saying the same thing about the Irish and Itallians. Even in the 60's Kennedy was contraversial in some circles for being both Irish and Catholic. Which is a major irony in O'Reilly's position as he wouln't have been considere a "White Christian" 100 years ago, he would have been a member of the growing threat to the Anglo-Saxon race according to two American Presidents, or a "papist mick" according to the KKK.
There was no such thing as a "Christian" nation in the 18th and 19th century either. During the same decade the U.S. constitution was written, Methodist ministers were beaten on the streets and Hogarth's fameous Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism was published in 1764. Oaths to the Church of England were still a key part of public life. The English Civil War was kicked off by riots over a prayer book that was considered too Catholic. A whif of Calvanism in Lutheran Germany and Scandanavia made you undesirable. And Protestant in France? You gotta be kidding. The kind of mushy ecumenicism that allows us to talk about "Christian" as a general cultural term is extremely recent. (Vatican II probably was a huge step in that direction.)
And yes, given that there is more genetic diversity between Ethiopia and South Africa than there is in the rest of the world COMBINED, race as classified in the U.S. is a cultural construct.
I hear suggestions about how white europeans blow at governing and Western heritage is such horrible crap etc etc. Well what do we want to replace it with?
Multiculturalism is only a threat because it points out that the U.S. has never really been a cultural homogeny, and isn't now. It's not Western heritage that's the problem, it's cultural imperialism that's the problem. The kind of thinking that says Spanish is an unfit language for the National Anthem. Or as another double standard you can make a film centered on the development of Irish, Itallian, and Jewish identities in America. But for other identites you are in "race films."
MikeMc: Well, as someone who has worked on international teams, people from the U.S. actually fall somewhere in the middle on the punctuality spectrum, with the result that we tend to drive everyone else nuts. It's ok to set standards, what is bad is assuming that, "we meet at 3:00" is going to mean the same thing to everyone. For some people that means, "show up at 2:45 and get everything ready to roll at 2:55." For others, that means, "show up at 3:00 +/- 5 minutes, engage in 'small talk' to build group solidarity, then get to business around 3:25."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:41 AM on May 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Except that this concept of a unified "Christian" and "Western European" culture is really a product of the second half of the 20th century. Go back a few generations and Teddy Rosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were saying the same thing about the Irish and Itallians. Even in the 60's Kennedy was contraversial in some circles for being both Irish and Catholic. Which is a major irony in O'Reilly's position as he wouln't have been considere a "White Christian" 100 years ago, he would have been a member of the growing threat to the Anglo-Saxon race according to two American Presidents, or a "papist mick" according to the KKK.
There was no such thing as a "Christian" nation in the 18th and 19th century either. During the same decade the U.S. constitution was written, Methodist ministers were beaten on the streets and Hogarth's fameous Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism was published in 1764. Oaths to the Church of England were still a key part of public life. The English Civil War was kicked off by riots over a prayer book that was considered too Catholic. A whif of Calvanism in Lutheran Germany and Scandanavia made you undesirable. And Protestant in France? You gotta be kidding. The kind of mushy ecumenicism that allows us to talk about "Christian" as a general cultural term is extremely recent. (Vatican II probably was a huge step in that direction.)
And yes, given that there is more genetic diversity between Ethiopia and South Africa than there is in the rest of the world COMBINED, race as classified in the U.S. is a cultural construct.
I hear suggestions about how white europeans blow at governing and Western heritage is such horrible crap etc etc. Well what do we want to replace it with?
Multiculturalism is only a threat because it points out that the U.S. has never really been a cultural homogeny, and isn't now. It's not Western heritage that's the problem, it's cultural imperialism that's the problem. The kind of thinking that says Spanish is an unfit language for the National Anthem. Or as another double standard you can make a film centered on the development of Irish, Itallian, and Jewish identities in America. But for other identites you are in "race films."
MikeMc: Well, as someone who has worked on international teams, people from the U.S. actually fall somewhere in the middle on the punctuality spectrum, with the result that we tend to drive everyone else nuts. It's ok to set standards, what is bad is assuming that, "we meet at 3:00" is going to mean the same thing to everyone. For some people that means, "show up at 2:45 and get everything ready to roll at 2:55." For others, that means, "show up at 3:00 +/- 5 minutes, engage in 'small talk' to build group solidarity, then get to business around 3:25."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:41 AM on May 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Multiculturalism is only a threat because it points out that the U.S. has never really been a cultural homogeny, and isn't now. It's not Western heritage that's the problem, it's cultural imperialism that's the problem.
Bingo!
Hit. The. Nail. On. The. Head.
posted by zaelic at 9:49 AM on May 18, 2006
Bingo!
Hit. The. Nail. On. The. Head.
posted by zaelic at 9:49 AM on May 18, 2006
what davidmsc said.
but i've stopped expecting mefites (and most self-proclaimed lefties) to read and comprehend before slapping the race card on the table.
posted by keswick at 10:18 AM on May 18, 2006
but i've stopped expecting mefites (and most self-proclaimed lefties) to read and comprehend before slapping the race card on the table.
posted by keswick at 10:18 AM on May 18, 2006
Man, Mike...if that's the best example you can come up with...that's pretty weak.
The problem is that the Pie is only So Big and certain folks wanna hang on to what they got, even if they did get it by (arguably) questionable means.
Completely understandable.
However, you cannot continually hold up this culture as the pinnacle of civillization and not expect people to 1) disagree with you somewhat and 2) want some of that and 3) bring some of what they know with them.
Paranoid? Shit, I'm the only black guy where I work. There are often few of 'my kind' most everywhere I go. But the reverse isn't the same for you I bet.
Since the O'Reilly's are in power, what have you got to be paranoid about?
posted by black8 at 10:19 AM on May 18, 2006
The problem is that the Pie is only So Big and certain folks wanna hang on to what they got, even if they did get it by (arguably) questionable means.
Completely understandable.
However, you cannot continually hold up this culture as the pinnacle of civillization and not expect people to 1) disagree with you somewhat and 2) want some of that and 3) bring some of what they know with them.
Paranoid? Shit, I'm the only black guy where I work. There are often few of 'my kind' most everywhere I go. But the reverse isn't the same for you I bet.
Since the O'Reilly's are in power, what have you got to be paranoid about?
posted by black8 at 10:19 AM on May 18, 2006
I remember back when I was in high school (in Toronto), during Black History month, this White kid I knew asked why there wasn't a White History month. He felt it wasn't fair. This Indian kid I knew yelled back, "Every month is White History month!"
posted by chunking express at 10:53 AM on May 18, 2006
posted by chunking express at 10:53 AM on May 18, 2006
"Man, Mike...if that's the best example you can come up with...that's pretty weak."
Perhaps it's not the best example but it'll do. Put yourself in the shoes of an O'Reilly or Gibson type (as best you can) and re-read the definitions on the linked page. Note how many times the terms "white/White" and "Whiteness" are used in a seemingly negative context and how something like these definitions could be used a fodder for a Fox talking head.
It all depends on how you read these things, if your glass is half-full it's nothing more than an effort to get people to understand that not all ethnic groups think the same. If your glass is half-empty it's nothing more than another attempt to demonize hetero, X-tian white men.
Frankly I think a lot of the stuff on that page is little more than convoluted bullshit, but, that's to be expected (I am a white guy after all).
"Since the O'Reilly's are in power, what have you got to be paranoid about?"
I'm not. As a hetero white guy I have it pretty good here and I know it. I don't feel guilty about the leg up my being born a white male has most likely given me nor am I paranoid about my place in society being undermined by multiculturalism. The same however cannot be said of all white guys.
posted by MikeMc at 10:57 AM on May 18, 2006
Perhaps it's not the best example but it'll do. Put yourself in the shoes of an O'Reilly or Gibson type (as best you can) and re-read the definitions on the linked page. Note how many times the terms "white/White" and "Whiteness" are used in a seemingly negative context and how something like these definitions could be used a fodder for a Fox talking head.
It all depends on how you read these things, if your glass is half-full it's nothing more than an effort to get people to understand that not all ethnic groups think the same. If your glass is half-empty it's nothing more than another attempt to demonize hetero, X-tian white men.
Frankly I think a lot of the stuff on that page is little more than convoluted bullshit, but, that's to be expected (I am a white guy after all).
"Since the O'Reilly's are in power, what have you got to be paranoid about?"
I'm not. As a hetero white guy I have it pretty good here and I know it. I don't feel guilty about the leg up my being born a white male has most likely given me nor am I paranoid about my place in society being undermined by multiculturalism. The same however cannot be said of all white guys.
posted by MikeMc at 10:57 AM on May 18, 2006
hey stavros, what's wrong with what gibson said exactly? Would you feel the same if a black man was asking for more colored babies? Or a rabbi for more Jewish babies?
The implied offense seems to be that he wants to keep the minorities as minorites, so his race doesn't lose power and cultural influence. Isn't this basically a sound strategy, both in a social and evolutionary sense?
...
posted by undule at 4:17 AM EST on May 18 [+fave] [!]
You're joking right?
posted by caddis at 11:08 AM on May 18, 2006
The implied offense seems to be that he wants to keep the minorities as minorites, so his race doesn't lose power and cultural influence. Isn't this basically a sound strategy, both in a social and evolutionary sense?
...
posted by undule at 4:17 AM EST on May 18 [+fave] [!]
You're joking right?
posted by caddis at 11:08 AM on May 18, 2006
Note how many times the terms "white/White" and "Whiteness" are used in a seemingly negative context and how something like these definitions could be used a fodder for a Fox talking head.
War on Christmas - did that, save it for next November
War on Easter - ditto
War on White Domination - new FOX News tagline. Hmmm, how to soften that so it sells . . . ? War on American culture?
posted by caddis at 11:12 AM on May 18, 2006
War on Christmas - did that, save it for next November
War on Easter - ditto
War on White Domination - new FOX News tagline. Hmmm, how to soften that so it sells . . . ? War on American culture?
posted by caddis at 11:12 AM on May 18, 2006
I think its real progress to see racism actually show its ugly face.
Doing so makes child's play to deconstruct.
Great job guys!
If my DNA contains a large percentage of aboriginal genes, that mkaes me the real owner of this land and I want those Gibson and falafel Bill types deported today.
posted by nofundy at 11:21 AM on May 18, 2006
Doing so makes child's play to deconstruct.
Great job guys!
If my DNA contains a large percentage of aboriginal genes, that mkaes me the real owner of this land and I want those Gibson and falafel Bill types deported today.
posted by nofundy at 11:21 AM on May 18, 2006
"War on American culture?"
Perhaps "The War on Western culture" (nevermind, Pat Buchanan already used that one).
posted by MikeMc at 11:32 AM on May 18, 2006
Perhaps "The War on Western culture" (nevermind, Pat Buchanan already used that one).
posted by MikeMc at 11:32 AM on May 18, 2006
keswick: i've stopped expecting mefites (and most self-proclaimed lefties) to read and comprehend before slapping the race card on the table.
So... you comprehend enough to understand that O'Reilly was speaking about what liberals think?
...but not enough to understand that what O'Reilly thinks about what liberals think is pretty much worthless? That it's a strawman? That it reveals nothing more than the contents of O'Reilly's mind?
And inside O'Reilly's mind is race war.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:38 AM on May 18, 2006
So... you comprehend enough to understand that O'Reilly was speaking about what liberals think?
...but not enough to understand that what O'Reilly thinks about what liberals think is pretty much worthless? That it's a strawman? That it reveals nothing more than the contents of O'Reilly's mind?
And inside O'Reilly's mind is race war.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:38 AM on May 18, 2006
One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race by Scott L. Malcomson delves deeply into the American definition of race, and its origins in the "Anglo Saxon" mythic identity forged during Cromwell's England as a way of distancing Anglican Protestant England from Catholicism - and the tendancy of Catholic, Mediterranean cultures to ignore "race" and produce middle classes of colonial mestizos. Mixing of blood led to hysterical reactions by both pro and anti slavery factions, terrified of being out bred by non-whites or swamped by mixed blood polluting the Anglo-Saxon ruling class. By 1910, this led to legistaltion that one drop of non-white blood classified one as non-white.
This obsession with being out-reproduced has deep roots in the history of American racism. While Blacks are seen as reeling from the effects of slavery, the rhetoric of "whiteness" in America still relies on myths and pseudo-science that date directly back to the ante-bellum debate about what to do with free balcks: if they remain in America, they pose the danger of interbreeding with whites or out breeding them In Virginia, this became such a threat that Virginia, in the 1820s, began to sell as many black slaves as possible to Missisippi and Alabama to be rid of as many African-Americans as possible. Lincoln himself argued to Frederick Douglas that the only future for African Americans was to be loaded onto boats and shipped to Liberia.
In the last couple of months the Republicans have been adressing the inner circles of what Grover Nordquist sees as their base: those who are against abortion, those who are for guns, and those who are Christian nationalists. In the face of all the recent outrages (allowing private militias - y'all remeber remember Oklahoma City? - guarding out border with Mexico, domestic spying on Americans, Rove, the Generals and Rumsfeld, just to start...) the Republicans are looking for ways to turn attention away from whatever is being debated in any given week.
Next week O'Reilly (who I consider a Republican talking-point operative) will come out against Indians, or call for the detention of Iranian Americans, or Venezualan Americans, who knows, but it has to be outrageous. It's to keep the networks dancing, and not focusing on any one point. they know that the public and the media have a hard time keeping up with their noise machine.
Republicans pulling out the threat of being "out-bred by non-whites" into public debate is a direct semi-coded message of racism to their base, echoing of Henry Ford, Father Coughlin, Governor George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Trent Lott.
Brazil had this debate in the 1930s. They've learned to accept themselves as Brazilians regardless of skin color, while we in the US still have not.
On the positive side, it shows how afraid and desparate the right wing now is.
posted by zaelic at 11:42 AM on May 18, 2006
This obsession with being out-reproduced has deep roots in the history of American racism. While Blacks are seen as reeling from the effects of slavery, the rhetoric of "whiteness" in America still relies on myths and pseudo-science that date directly back to the ante-bellum debate about what to do with free balcks: if they remain in America, they pose the danger of interbreeding with whites or out breeding them In Virginia, this became such a threat that Virginia, in the 1820s, began to sell as many black slaves as possible to Missisippi and Alabama to be rid of as many African-Americans as possible. Lincoln himself argued to Frederick Douglas that the only future for African Americans was to be loaded onto boats and shipped to Liberia.
In the last couple of months the Republicans have been adressing the inner circles of what Grover Nordquist sees as their base: those who are against abortion, those who are for guns, and those who are Christian nationalists. In the face of all the recent outrages (allowing private militias - y'all remeber remember Oklahoma City? - guarding out border with Mexico, domestic spying on Americans, Rove, the Generals and Rumsfeld, just to start...) the Republicans are looking for ways to turn attention away from whatever is being debated in any given week.
Next week O'Reilly (who I consider a Republican talking-point operative) will come out against Indians, or call for the detention of Iranian Americans, or Venezualan Americans, who knows, but it has to be outrageous. It's to keep the networks dancing, and not focusing on any one point. they know that the public and the media have a hard time keeping up with their noise machine.
Republicans pulling out the threat of being "out-bred by non-whites" into public debate is a direct semi-coded message of racism to their base, echoing of Henry Ford, Father Coughlin, Governor George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Trent Lott.
Brazil had this debate in the 1930s. They've learned to accept themselves as Brazilians regardless of skin color, while we in the US still have not.
On the positive side, it shows how afraid and desparate the right wing now is.
posted by zaelic at 11:42 AM on May 18, 2006
"Republicans pulling out the threat of being "out-bred by non-whites" into public debate is a direct semi-coded message of racism to their base,..."
Nothing "semi-coded" about "out-bred by non-whites". I think the most dedicated members of their base are already addressing this issue.
posted by MikeMc at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2006
Nothing "semi-coded" about "out-bred by non-whites". I think the most dedicated members of their base are already addressing this issue.
posted by MikeMc at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2006
"But here in the United States we have pretty much settled on hours, minutes, days etc....
... You may think all concepts of time are equally valid but I assure you most employers do not."
Sure. Saying "show up at 9am" is not racist. The definition said that it's racist when "white" norms are used to devalue etc. other norms. So, saying that X people are stupid/lazy/etc. because they have a different notion of time is racist. Saying that a job has a fixed schedule is not.
When confronted with someone who is not American and not conforming to the schedule, a boss who responds with "All people from there are lazy" is being "culturally racist" (according to the definition). A boss who attempts to educate the person about what is expected of the person without making a value-judgement about what that means for the person is not.
posted by carmen at 12:25 PM on May 18, 2006
... You may think all concepts of time are equally valid but I assure you most employers do not."
Sure. Saying "show up at 9am" is not racist. The definition said that it's racist when "white" norms are used to devalue etc. other norms. So, saying that X people are stupid/lazy/etc. because they have a different notion of time is racist. Saying that a job has a fixed schedule is not.
When confronted with someone who is not American and not conforming to the schedule, a boss who responds with "All people from there are lazy" is being "culturally racist" (according to the definition). A boss who attempts to educate the person about what is expected of the person without making a value-judgement about what that means for the person is not.
posted by carmen at 12:25 PM on May 18, 2006
M_C_D - My thoughts exactly; Also, Bush speaking of biometric ID cards for illegals, seems to act as diversion to "normalizing" this sort of thing. Hypothetically of course, if these are implemented those without cards are "assumed" to be legal immigrants / citizens? I get mistaken for being German all the time; Is this yet another way to get shaken down? Perhaps, once in circulation, consensus will be "hey these cards work great, lets apply it to all our citizens." Anyone interested in starting an international mail order spouse / citizenship collective?
posted by AllesKlar at 12:58 PM on May 18, 2006
posted by AllesKlar at 12:58 PM on May 18, 2006
sonofsamiam: no more worthless than people claiming i am racist because i oppose illegal immigration.
posted by keswick at 1:00 PM on May 18, 2006
posted by keswick at 1:00 PM on May 18, 2006
Hypothetically of course, if these are implemented those without cards are "assumed" to be legal immigrants / citizens?
I hope the problem with this idea is obvious.
Any effort that targets the illegals instead of the citizens that employ them will have to discriminate between citizens and non-citizens.
If you ask all illegals to carry a card, they will simply leave it at home. Therefore, all citizens will need a card, too.
If you just have a big biometric database, then citizens will be compelled to give their biometric data.
Any effort that targets illegals targets Americans.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:01 PM on May 18, 2006
I hope the problem with this idea is obvious.
Any effort that targets the illegals instead of the citizens that employ them will have to discriminate between citizens and non-citizens.
If you ask all illegals to carry a card, they will simply leave it at home. Therefore, all citizens will need a card, too.
If you just have a big biometric database, then citizens will be compelled to give their biometric data.
Any effort that targets illegals targets Americans.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:01 PM on May 18, 2006
keswick: no more worthless than people claiming i am racist because i oppose illegal immigration.
So you should buy his bullshit? Because some other people are full of bullshit?
That makes sense.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:03 PM on May 18, 2006
So you should buy his bullshit? Because some other people are full of bullshit?
That makes sense.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:03 PM on May 18, 2006
sonofsamiam: in my experience, he has a fair assessment of many lefties on this issue. i see a lot of rich white liberal guilt on this board.
Even a stopped clock can occasionally beright er... correct, you know.
posted by keswick at 1:09 PM on May 18, 2006
Even a stopped clock can occasionally be
posted by keswick at 1:09 PM on May 18, 2006
Of course a stopped clock can be correct.
By coincidence.
There is such thing as white guilt. O'Reilly's strawman arguments are no basis from which to consider the issue.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:21 PM on May 18, 2006
By coincidence.
There is such thing as white guilt. O'Reilly's strawman arguments are no basis from which to consider the issue.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:21 PM on May 18, 2006
Well, the seattle public schools link seems a bit whacky, and I can see how it could be considered 'anti-white'. But lets be realistic, the Seattle public schools aren't calling for huge expensive projects to keep the relative numbers of whites down.
Arguing that there's an 'evolutionary' argument for keeping America extra white is idiotic. Having more Mexicans in America does not limit the number of breeding opportunities for non-Mexicans at all.
Anyway, I'm convinced those who are freaking out about the border are doing so out of a deep seated racism. Call that thought "bullshit" all you want but it seems obvious to me. *shrug*
posted by delmoi at 3:15 PM on May 18, 2006
Arguing that there's an 'evolutionary' argument for keeping America extra white is idiotic. Having more Mexicans in America does not limit the number of breeding opportunities for non-Mexicans at all.
Anyway, I'm convinced those who are freaking out about the border are doing so out of a deep seated racism. Call that thought "bullshit" all you want but it seems obvious to me. *shrug*
posted by delmoi at 3:15 PM on May 18, 2006
i'm convinced you hold your beliefs out of a deep-seated guilt for being born white. Call that thought "bullshit" all you want, but it seems obvious to me. *shrug*
posted by keswick at 3:37 PM on May 18, 2006
posted by keswick at 3:37 PM on May 18, 2006
That's a pretty specious charge keswick. Any basis for it other than it's just your gut opinion. That's where the truth lies right? Did you know you have more nerve ...
posted by caddis at 3:50 PM on May 18, 2006
posted by caddis at 3:50 PM on May 18, 2006
why are you criticizing me for what was an obvious restatement of delmoi's, designed to show how ridiculous it is?
posted by keswick at 4:13 PM on May 18, 2006
posted by keswick at 4:13 PM on May 18, 2006
Wow. Shameless race baiting. From O'Rielly? I'm shocked, shocked...oh wait, not that...the other thing...)
posted by dejah420 at 8:15 PM on May 18, 2006
posted by dejah420 at 8:15 PM on May 18, 2006
« Older Members of AGR planned on making new members... | Spandex Index Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:54 PM on May 17, 2006