It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Reason That You are Terrified of Latinos, Africans, Asians and/or Muslims

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Smedly

Where do you stand on enforced multi -lingualism such as is seen in parts of the USA. I am against it on the basis of cost and also the need of immigrant assimilation. Learning English is part of an unspoken contract and will have economic benefits.




posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

vig·i·lan·te
[vij-uh-lan-tee]
–noun
  1. a member of a vigilance committee.
  2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
–adjective
  1. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.

Formatting mine to match original
Source: dictionary.reference.com...

There is a world of difference between 'vigilance' and 'vigilante', not only in the connotation but in the definition as well as you can see. I will not stand by idly and allow you to smear the name of men and women who, as you say, took responsibility upon themselves to assist a government that is unwilling to do their job in an attempt to promote legal responsibility. I have little doubt that you know the difference between the two terms as well as I.


They can unconsciously demand that the agenda of actual bigots and xenophobes and elitists be carried out because these groups have learned how to sanitize their rhetoric for the politically-correct age.

Gee, just when I thought we were coming to some form of agreement.

Are you saying now that people who are not racist are still racist? That is what it sounds like. I fear you give society too little credit, but I am interested to know what you think the solution would be to this problem you propose... exactly how can we be sure this latent xenophobia is eradicated?


Foreigners are uncivilized? Really?

I believe the statement you refer to was one of some foreign nations, and thus their inhabitants, being less civilized than the USA. Similar, but you have done a masterful job of twisting these words around to provoke a negative connotation.

Yes, Smedley, there are countries and peoples who are less civilized than we are, as defined by our definition of 'civilized'. That does not follow that these people are somehow inferior or should be subjugated; it means that their culture and their level of technological sophistication is vastly different from ours. Different does not mean worse. It can, however, mean that assistance is needed in order for certain peoples to be capable of assimilating into and enjoying a more civilized society. Let's face it: someone who has never heard of a computer and is barely capable of adding two numbers together will have a hard time getting any job in Times Square. They may be extremely adept at the needs of their community, however.

I would even go so far as to say that most of us would have extreme difficulty adapting to their way of life. I consider this attitude non-racist because it is not a blanket statement of an entire race; but, since I have no doubt triggered the mental hair trigger you have been waiting on me to pull, and am surely about to be buried beneath an avalanche of screams of "XENOPHOBE!!!", allow me to point out that not once have I mentioned race, creed, color, or national origin in this thread as being inherently anything. That's because the level of civilization and the color of skin are entirely unrelated.

Now, go ahead and flame. My Christmas gift to this thread.



That sort of takes the impact out of it, don't you think?

Not really.

I mentioned I was a truck driver for 8 years. during that time I entered Canada a few times. Now, according to my culture, it is commonplace to be armed... one never knows when one will come across a dangerous 'varmint' (snake, 'coon, possum, bear, bobcat, boar, etc.) and need to shoot it. Yet, when I entered Canada, I was not armed. Why? Because Canada has laws prohibiting handguns. I adjusted to the culture in order to perform my job, which included my spending a few days in that nation.

I did not take dangerous backroads to try and find a place where I could slip through with my trusty .357 S&W on my hip... I made adjustments that allowed me to legally enter the country and did so through the legal customs port.

Life is full of changes, and should those changes ever require me to move into another established culture, I will not change my views. I will go in making whatever adjustments that society requires of me to assimilate. My words are more than words; they are an expression of my moral center, something which has not changed since I was young.

I expect the same can be said of many who feel the way I do.


today it is Muslims, yesterday it was Hispanics, tomorrow it may be Asians.

It will be whoever is making the most noise against assimilating into the culture.

When immigrants come into an area, it is simple human nature to make cultural mistakes. That is called "culture shock" and is to be expected. It is also simple human nature to fight against any such changes to the indigenous culture, as we appear to agree on. So the group that is making the most noise about not wanting to adapt will be the ones targeted.

When Mexicans began streaming across the border in huge numbers illegally, it created a backlash from society... they were breaking the law, apparently not adapting, and in some cases overtly denying that they should adapt (I remember one case where a US Post Office was overrun and a Mexican flag hoisted to replace the American flag.... an open act of war in many countries; a violation of law here). When Muslims (which, incidentally, is a religion, not a race) began demanding special rights that were antithetical to our society's established laws, another uproar arose. It will continue to be that way, regardless of who is immigrating where as long as there is stubborn opposition to adaptation. That is human nature and must be worked with, as it cannot be overcome.

When I place a building on my land, I take the time to look at the water drainage. Why? Because I know from my education and experience that water cannot be stopped or removed just because it is inconvenient... the flow must be shifted, not stopped, or soon I will have a building in the middle of a lake. Human nature is like that water... you can work with it and achieve desired goals, or you can fight against it and lose. There are no other choices. I recognize the things that cannot be changed, and seek ways to work around them to achieve my goals - in this discussion that would be equality and justice for all.

Do you? Or do you simply demand that the water stop flowing where you want to build that house?

Merry Christmas Smedley (and of course, everyone else!), and may the holidays and the new year bring joy and peace to all men everywhere.

TheRedneck

 

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

I am saying that there are many cliques, each aiming to control the politics in their region, each desiring control for different reasons.

Not to try and take this discussion off topic, but I wanted to say that finally, at long, long last, you said something I can agree with.


TheRedneck

edit on 12/24/2010 by TheRedneck because: added reply to another post



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 


Based on my own experience, I would say that multilingualism doesn't change the economic situation overnight. Official multilingualism means that government documents must be provided in multiple languages and may extend to consumer products, not that the public is required to become multilingual. In practical terms, immigrants will still need to learn the dominant language in order to benefit from the economic opportunities that are available.

In my experience, a multilingual society undergoes a sort of linguistic osmosis - - the public gradually and passively learns other languages due to exposure. In my case, most of the French that I know comes from reading labels on consumer goods! Nevertheless, I cannot speak French and if a Francophone wanted to do business with me, one of us would have to learn the language of the other. In all likelihood, they would have to learn English because of the overwhelming number of Anglophones in this region.
edit on 24-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I prefer to look at the historical meaning and development of words to understand them more fully. Some words are used incorrectly, and this is done so frequently that the meaning of the word appears to change. You may have noticed from my previous posts that I have a sick fetish for etymology.
Vigilante:

"member of a vigilance committee," 1856, Amer.Eng., from Sp. vigilante, lit. "watchman," from L. vigilantem (see vigilance). Vigilant man in same sense is attested from 1824 in a Missouri context. Vigilance committees kept informal rough order on the frontier or in other places where official authority was imperfect.
There is no smear intended here. I see the Minutemen as exactly this; civilian watchmen keeping rough order on the Mex-American frontier because the official watchmen aren't effective.

I don't think that people who are not racist are actually racist, I am saying that people who are not racist can actually promote racism because they have been fooled by genuine racists. It's like liberals that promote communism because genuine communists have told them that redistribution of wealth increases liberty. The argument seems reasonable enough; "the poor are constrained by their poverty and the freedom of the wealthy would not suffer from a little bit of taxation..." Likewise, the arguments put forth by secret racists seem reasonable to non-racists; "immigrants bring their problems to our country when they migrate here; drugs, ethnic conflict, religious oppression..."

Once again, I am not calling you a xenophobe. You are taking the reasonable, practical middle path. Look around this thread, this site, and you will see many examples of actual xenophobia. You will see many, many more cases of people who are not xenophobes yet continue to use the terminology and arguments of actual xenophobes. In many cases, these non-racists are genuinely frightened or wary of outsiders but do not make it a part of their ideology; they are simply afraid of the unfamiliar. This is not unreasonable, but it does leave one vulnerable to racists. They are like the cartoon devil standing on your shoulder, whispering in your ear, trying to trick you into making a fool of yourself and doing the devil's dirty work.

You seem to be a reasonable and liberal (respectful of liberty) person, and I am sure that you are right and there are many millions more like you. You and others like you are not the 'target' of this thread; those actually disrespectful of other cultures, other races, other religions, other ways of thinking are. The rhetoric that spreads their intolerance like a virus is also the target, and so many people who are not xenophobes will find themselves in the crossfire and think that they are under attack. Still, I think that you are underestimating how many of these genuine xenophobes live in our Western democracies, just as I am overstating how many there are. Alas, that is what happens when people debate two opposing positions, the middle ground is ignored, and it is the middle ground where the truth usually lies.

Merry Christmas to you too!

P.S. If citizens try to change the law to suit their tastes, as is their right to do, it is the duty of the courts to uphold the supreme law. Apparently it is the job of the media to make a hysterical fuss about it and agitate the viewers' wariness of the unfamiliar to boost ratings. I recall the Sharia law controversy in Ontario a few years back; Jewish families were allowed to settle their own disputes using Jewish law and a separate court system and the Muslim legal community wanted to create sharia courts to oversee their own family disputes; the media turned this into a "SHARIA LAW TAKEOVER" hysteria. In the end, the Jewish court system was removed because it was deemed unfair to disallow one religious law and endorse another.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 



Sorry mate. I find no reason to disagree with your view on multilingualism. The simple fact is that some of the peopl ethat need to have certain documents in their non-enfglish language also pay taxes. The point about paying taxes is that it does give you a moral right to get something back in return - especial if it relates to key documents being presented in their non-english language.

I have been fortunate to only spend 2 days in hospital I do not begrudge those who spend considerably long in hospital "one my taxes". There by the grace of my gods go I.


edit on 24-12-2010 by tiger5 because: Ad a para



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Smedley I think that your OP is frankly too big for a single thread. I believe that it was derailed some time ago when we got intothe issue of illegals. We have not even got into Islam. Now that is an area rich in Xenophobia because no one seems to have noticed fundamentalism is the problem as opposed to Islam. The Xenophobes are very happy with their "Broad brush painting of Islam" As if the Xtian right is not a threat to freedom and tghe American way in fact they call them "Patriots".



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 



Sorry mate. I find no reason to disagree with your view on multilingualism. The simple fact is that some of the people ethat need to have certain documents in their non-enfglish language also pay taxes. The point about paying taxes is that it does give you a moral right to get something back in return - especial if it relates to key documents being presented in their non-english language.

I


edit on 24-12-2010 by tiger5 because: Ad a para

Have you ever seen a payroll ledger of a company that employee's illegals? The majority of illegals are here for the $$$ and it shows with their declaration of max dependents allowed, not to mention their ever changing SS #'s. I know a few people including ex wifey that do payrolls for large companies that employee illegals, they say it's a nightmare processing W-4 and 1099's because of all the fake SS#'s, but yet they got paid with very little taxes taken out. No matter to them when they make in an hr what they made back at home in a day or two. I'm in the system, so....they nail me, and I end up supporting people that make the same or close to, dollar amounts I do. This is where it starts really piss'n me off and my PC goes out the door.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 


I definitely agree. It has been very difficult for me to keep the thread on topic, I suppose there is something about my choice of words that made people think I was a typical defender of illegal immigration and amnesty. Still, I think that this thread is valuable and my debate with Mr. Redneck in particular has been productive. I am content! Someday I will refer back to this thread and hopefully I will be more focused when I do.

reply to post by mtnshredder
 

Legal migrants that speak a non-English language as their first language are taxpayers and may want official documents to be written in the language they are most comfortable with. Legal language and common speech are different in English and Spanish and French and so on. Just because an Hispanic immigrant has a functional literacy in English does not mean that they understand legal English as well as they understand legal Spanish.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 



Sorry but I thought that I had clarrifeid that i do not support lawbreakers like illegals. The OP is really about Xenophobia as opposed to illegals. A lot of evil is done and has been done whilst chasing illegals.

Try not to fall into that trap.

Sorry your whole argument is interesting but not relevant to Xenophobia as Xenophobics are not just concerned with illegals. If you were a Latino Legal (there are some) Then you would see things a whole lot differently.



edit on 24-12-2010 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
You see The OP writes about Xenophobia and then everyone dives of about damn Illegals and the mexican invasion..
No wonder we cannot get an intelligent discussion on Islamic fundamentalism just good old Islam bashing.

Just to clairfy my personal agenda I do not practice any of the Religions of the BOOK

Sheesh!
edit on 24-12-2010 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


I'm sorry, haven't had a chance to read this yet, just saw the title

The Real Reason That You are Terrified of Latinos, Africans, Asians and/or Muslims



And was instantly moved to great boughts of uproarious laughter.


I will try to regain my composure now and pay attention to the actual content.

Sorry for the interruption..





posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 

Your right, this thread quickly deviated OT, I'm guilty of this also, sorry guys. I get tunneled in the "illegal" immigration debate sometimes. It's had such a huge negative impact on me and others, it gets very frustrating and emotional when you're sinking and there are lots of illegals still working, at least in my trade (painting 30+ yrs). Anyway, it's been an interesting and entertaining thread none the less. So...carry on, Happy Holidays All!


edit on 25-12-2010 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 





Most supporters of strong borders and opponents of immigration do not really care about democratic values. They do not care about human beings and their rights. They are fascists who only care about preserving their own rights and privileges.


Ha! These few sentences says it all!


And this is what nationalism as a whole truly is about... securing assets for a bunch of crooked, barbaric people who are invaders THEMSELVES. The fact is that WE ARE COLONIZERS, even still today. We do not come from this place. So there is no single "God-given" right to the land known as America and its resources, unless we allow others to use these as well. But by "others" I don't mean big offshore corporations...

edit on 27/12/10 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 





Most supporters of strong borders and opponents of immigration do not really care about democratic values. They do not care about human beings and their rights. They are fascists who only care about preserving their own rights and privileges.


Ha! These few sentences says it all!


And this is what nationalism as a whole truly is about... securing assets for a bunch of crooked, barbaric people who are invaders THEMSELVES. The fact is that WE ARE COLONIZERS, even still today. We do not come from this place. So there is no single "God-given" right to the land known as America and its resources, unless we allow others to use these as well. But by "others" I don't mean big offshore corporations...

edit on 27/12/10 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)


We are the property of Big Corporate and the Rothschild/Rockefeller Banking Cartel. Until we see the chains of the state and our captors for who they really are then we'll remain distracted and disjointed citizen SLAVES.

The right to land is pointless if they order you to pay them FIAT money to pay a PRIVATE property OWNER or GOVERNMENT parasite for the "right" to have it.

But go on squabble over the fake "rights" all you want. Go right ahead.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by Echtelion
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 





Most supporters of strong borders and opponents of immigration do not really care about democratic values. They do not care about human beings and their rights. They are fascists who only care about preserving their own rights and privileges.


Ha! These few sentences says it all!


And this is what nationalism as a whole truly is about... securing assets for a bunch of crooked, barbaric people who are invaders THEMSELVES. The fact is that WE ARE COLONIZERS, even still today. We do not come from this place. So there is no single "God-given" right to the land known as America and its resources, unless we allow others to use these as well. But by "others" I don't mean big offshore corporations...

edit on 27/12/10 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)


We are the property of Big Corporate and the Rothschild/Rockefeller Banking Cartel. Until we see the chains of the state and our captors for who they really are then we'll remain distracted and disjointed citizen SLAVES.

The right to land is pointless if they order you to pay them FIAT money to pay a PRIVATE property OWNER or GOVERNMENT parasite for the "right" to have it.

But go on squabble over the fake "rights" all you want. Go right ahead.


No squabble, I do agree with you, mostly.

Our right to the land is unquestionable.

What's always questionable is our EXCLUSIVITY to it, and our separation from it, and both are created by the very same capitalism that was supposed to grant us more rights and liberties through this Constitution. But make no mistake, socialism and State property is no better... more like coming back to monarchy, but without a monarch to be held accountable.

To prove that I'm not just squabbling, here's my solution: Abolish property of land! Abolish property as a whole! That's the best solution out of this mess you and I are in. Of course there are some issues with breaking property, and especially keep things out of property, but it may be worth the try....

After all we all work at producing the very things that make our existence, so isn't it just the most natural thing not to have to pay for it?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


I'm afraid you are an idealist and your ideas don't hold up to logic. You have just been talking in circles trying to answer real concerns from people in your thread. You would however make a terrific politician.

I guess since you feel the way you do, you wouldn't mind if next time you left your home for a few hours if I moved in? I mean I'll gladly start paying your bills but the house and all you own is mine now.

Give me a break..



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Redwookieaz
 


My grand argument was that Americans have lost the idealism that the nation was founded on and that this decline in the spirit of revolution has left the people craving structure, rule, and slavery. 'Realism' becomes a popular ideology only when the people have become weak and sick and unable to fight the Good Fight, the eternal struggle to preserve Liberty from any who would take it away.

Realists are unable to improve the world because they do not believe that it can be improved. Idealists are those who invent new and better worlds for themselves. If you do not want to participate in the creation of the New World, then feel free to scoff at idealists. Realism will lead you in circles and it will never take you to a better future.

Pragmatism is a different affair. It is the art of negotiating challenges to your ideals, and devising strategies that will ultimately satisfy your ideals. The whole of the activity of life is devoted to achieving goals, or realizing our ideals.

Now, if you don't work to fulfill your ideals, how are you going to achieve a better world for yourself and your children?
edit on 28-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Redwookieaz
 

I couldn't agree with you more. I've watched dogs chase their tails before, but some of the replies in this thread are absolutely ridiculous, without merit and pointless except to the person writing them. Just someone trying to sell their ideological beliefs that they've sold to them selfs, which when judged by commentary is an obvious easy sell. Sometimes you have to think out side the box people, not just disagree with others for the sake of disagreeing and meaningless prattle, but it is cheap entertainment watching you go in circles. It's like trying to argue that an apples not really an apple, pointless.




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join