It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Son of Will
With respect, it doesn't really matter how one "feels" if person A was born into a millionaire family, and person B was born in a slum. It sucks. Person B probably thinks that person A should help him, but you cannot legislate good will. If you do, you might as well toss our Constitution out the window.
[edit on 19-5-2010 by Son of Will]
Originally posted by BlackOps719
Typical America hating liberal douchebaggery.
Go tell it to Chavez.
How do you think Mexico was formed into what it is today? Do you mean to imply that the Spaniards all lived in peace and harmony amongst the Incas, the Aztecs etc? Was there no violence, no supplantation of culture?
How about Canada? What types of indigenous peoples inhabited that massive territory of land before the first whites came from Europe? Did they all live peacefully as well, or did some land grabbing and warmongering take place there as well?
And what happened to the old druidic tribes of early Europe at the hands of the Romans, the Anglos and the nations who now make up England, Ireland etc?
How about the Australian abboriginees?
To hear you quasi-educated apologists tell it, the United States is the only nation that was ever taken from an indigenous or native peoples, the only nation to ever support or harbor slavery, and the only nation to ever do anything wrong to anyone.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
There is no such thing as fighting fair, just ask Evander Holyfield. You made some fairly bad assumptions yourself. The Native Americans weren't a bunch of angels that lived in total harmony among each other before the Europeans arrived. There are plenty of accounts of wars between the tribes and it was a largely tribal form of governance. Tribe against tribe, some enslaving others, killing each other for land, they were humans too, and acted just as human as we all do. Angry Messiah's aren't nearly as effective as the compassionate ones, if effect was your goal.
It is most certainly complicated, and oversimplifying the problem and then kicking the dog for barking without bothering to see just who that dog is barking at, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not all who are angry realize who it is they are angry at, but some certainly do, and are no less appalled than you at the pointless bickering between people. Staying focused on the source of the problem and working in ways to fix that problem is the answer. You came in with what you thought was a solution, but solutions are not necessarily answers, and too often turn out to not be the answer at all. A salt solution will only work for specific problems and if used indiscriminately can do more harm than good. Answers are what are needed, not solutions. Firing a gun in the air may be a solution, but what goes up always comes down, and God forbid that bullet you shot in the air just to get attention did more harm than good.
This is semantic. I'm not talking about fighting fair, I'm saying that accusing me of glibness in response to glibness was fair enough.
I'll repeat myself in rebutting the rest of your discussion above: why does it matter whether Native Americans were angelic? They were generally far more kind to one another (and indeed to the colonizers) than the colonizers were to them, but that is beside the point. It would not excuse their mistreatment if they were cannibals one and all. So there's that.
I didn't oversimplify the problem. I said your comment was complicated to reply to because it encompassed several unrelated subjects and would have quite dramatically altered the primary content of the thread.
I came in making a point that is well founded in fact but very hard to swallow: the accomplishments being "defended" by angry patriots are things won while standing upon the shoulders of giants who came before. And before those giants were mountains and hills stolen from others. We can talk about how this is the way of the world until the sun is low, but let's not ignore the truth of it.
And the bullet to which you refer? It was a blank.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
This is precisely my point when you bring the Native American's into the picture while criticizing those who are angry with the current immigration situation. What does it matter how the people of The United States of America came to be "Americans"? If it does not matter how Native Americans comported themselves, then surely it does not matter how Europeans comported themselves. As to your argument that Native Americans were generally far more kinder to each other and the colonizers as well is either due to ignorance of the reality of that history, or a willful revision of history. As it is with all people, some Native Americans were more compassionate than others, and some Europeans were more compassionate with others., but as you say now, this is beside the point, even though your O.P. seemed to want to make that the point. So, there's that.
Your O.P. most certainly did oversimplify the problem, and because it did, all that was really accomplished was to invite several people to attack Mexicans, as is evident by several posts in this thread. My comment that the source of the anger is due to a massive failure on the part of the federal government to protect the borders and enforce the immigration laws that Congress legislated is not even close to being unrelated subjects, and if it would have quite dramatically altered the primary content of the thread, that is only because your intentions with this thread is not to find practical answers to calm a nation, but instead to stoke the flames that are causing this anger.
It is just more revisionist history to first hopelessly attempt to frame the palpable anger over immigration as being nothing more than a fringe group of patriots, and then to ignore the more recent history of giants who have accomplished much in terms of technology, scientific discoveries, and simple ingenuity. This may be hard for you to swallow but both the Native Americans who predate The United States of America and the giants of whom we call our Founders did not in their wildest dreams imagine that this nation would place people on the moon, and explore the terrain of Mars. Neither the Native Americans of prehistory, nor our Founders predicted the rise of the internet that allows for this discourse, and your insistence on continually referring to lands stolen by these giants you speak of, while simultaneously dismissing any arguments that Native Americans spent a great deal of time stealing lands from each other is indicative of your disingenuous approach to this problem.
It is the task of the federal government to control the flow of immigration so that it does not affect this nations stability and general welfare adversely. Herein lies the problem, and attacking the angry for being angry and bringing in irrelevant points that you will admit to being irrelevant when your own arguments are used against you, then being as whimsical as you are, pointing to these irrelevant points when you feel satisfied you've effectively dismissed any irrelevancy when your argument is used against you, only points to your problems with logic. Even with internal logic the rules must remain consistent or the break in logic will be apparent.
It is quite clear to virtually all who have read this thread that you came in shooting blanks.
Many arguments around these very parts posit that Mexicans are inferior because Mexico is a poorer country.
That is not a fundamental error in logic, it is arguably an error in my choice of rhetoric.
History is much more complicated.
Most countries find their way to wealth and power via somewhat despicable means and it is no different with the United States.
Mexicans no more made their own fortunes in that regard than an 18 year old in the United States can take credit for Women's Suffrage.
I am certain Mexicans of ages past would have happily displaced native populations and taken their resources, but in this case they were the native population and their resources were sacked by the Spanish.
They simply haven't had the opportunity to profitably visit that misery on others in the same way that European colonizers did.
Incidentally, the accounts of Columbus and related parties almost universally describe the tribes they encountered as unbelievably open, friendly, and naive. So in this particular case the points being made about the savagery of Native Americans don't hold water, though again, those points aim to defeat a straw man in the first place.
After I post this reply I will revisit the paragraph I chose not to unpack. If I concur, I will reply. If I do not, I'll explain why in detail. I would suggest that you seem to spend a lot of your time speculating about my intent when I have stated it clearly enough in my replies to yourself and others. The point of the thread from my standpoint, however, was to address the hateful and nationalist prose I see every day. To me this is a larger issue than what the federal government is or is not doing. So in that sense your focus was different from mine and thus my commentary to that effect. Still, I can meet halfway, so give me an opportunity to revisit your earlier post and we'll see if there is seed for conversation there.
We obviously do not see eye to eye. Of course that's to be expected when you set out to explain my motivations to me instead of listening to what I tell you about my thoughts. I am absolutely framing the anger as ill founded and ill placed.
I am further suggesting that we inherit neither the nobility nor the viciousness of our ancestors. "We", in this sense, being every citizen of every nation.
I am also identifying the over the top anger I see with the same type of unhealthy, unquestioning nationalism that I happily lambast.
I agree with Einstein when he said "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." The collective myth of manifest destiny and the collective forgetting of where we got our power is an incubator for this disease.
And Revisionist? How so?
Did you write the constitution?
Did you work to end slavery?
Did you raze Native American encampments and destroy their crops?
My point is that those uttering these harsh words hardly have themselves to thank for the state of the country they are so misguidedly defending.
In fact their defense of America is doing more to harm than to help.
I don't think you've done much to show an error in my logic.
Presumably you are referring to me admitting that I was glib and dramatic.
That is not a fundamental error in logic, it is arguably an error in my choice of rhetoric. To suggest that it backfired and for me to agree that it did hardly equates to general issues with logic or a successful attack mounted on my statements about American history. It's not that my points are irrelevant, it's that your straw men are irrelevant. It was a good try, though.