or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 143

post #2131 of 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

What can you say about illegal immigration (and certainly legal immigration) that won't be labeled disparaging and racist?

That you're for more of it?
post #2132 of 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

this is me 7 out of 7 on this list

stilll can't indentify with the left because of immigration issues, feminism and free speech/SJWism
left has gone insane

immigration is THE issue

It's not a coincidence that my children look like me. It's not a coincidence that the America founded by Englishmen was a lot like England. And it's not a coincidence that the more people we incorporate from Latin America, the more our nation starts to resemble Latin America, i.e. economic inequality, low trust, corruption, social and economic instability. It's only going to get worse if we don't do something about it.
post #2133 of 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

immigration is THE issue

It's not a coincidence that my children look like me. It's not a coincidence that the America founded by Englishmen was a lot like England. And it's not a coincidence that the more people we incorporate from Latin America, the more our nation starts to resemble Latin America, i.e. economic inequality, low trust, corruption, social and economic instability. It's only going to get worse if we don't do something about it.

Wow, this is really a concentrated, pure, distilled form of stupidity. Frankly, I'm impressed.
post #2134 of 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Wow, this is really a concentrated, pure, distilled form of stupidity. Frankly, I'm impressed.

I've seen a lot of your posts and yet never one where you had anything to say.
post #2135 of 8792
This forum really needs an "I disagree!" button.
post #2136 of 8792
Okay, then, here's something:

Yes, the English colonists in America wanted to take part in the vision of importing a homeland to a new place. This is an imperial vision partly informed by a Virgilian narrative but also filtered, of course, through a biblical/typological view. And, at the more practical level, sure English settlers brought with them a range of English political & cultural habits. But in the very place called New England, the settlers were mostly trying something new--something that was breaking away from existing English practices exactly at the time that England itself was experiencing religious & political upheaval. (I should confess I study the English side of this 17th-century history and am not nearly as conversant with the American side). But even this narrative of partial continuity and partial rupture is too narrowly focused on New England--in the South, colonists had (very roughy speaking) a different set of reasons for settling and colonizing. And the history of "forced immigration" in the South reveals a particular way that America would be very unlike England. Even if the American plantations had practical and imaginative links to English agrarian/labor practices (and they did), the predominance and persistence of chattel slavery in America gave way to different practices as well as cultural mixing (duh: Southern food would become nothing like English food).

But even more than the question of where is the question of when--when do you imagine this mythic time when the American colonies were really a so much like England? Because things in the Americas were pretty mixed up, full of Dutch and French peoples and influences that we're still familiar with. I'm guessing that you're implicitly bracketing off some span of imagined time when, no, the Dutch had largely given up in the Northern colonies, etc.., and so America was just like England? But I'm not even inclined to be so generous as to think that there is some definition that would make your rosy view of English America make sense. Shit was mixed up here in way that's different from the way shit was mixed up in England, and no amount of mutatis mutandis is going to make your glib non-argument-by-fiat make sense.

For the sake of brevity: that Latin America tripe is just racist horseshit. Clearly, the American economic/political system collapsed when the Irish came. Or maybe the Italians. Or maybe Jewish emigrés. I mean, everything was great before that--in that mythic time when everything was great and English.
Edited by erictheobscure - 4/7/16 at 2:19pm
post #2137 of 8792
PS - We have a Constitution. That's pretty different from England. I mean, unless you were making a brilliant argument that the American colonists had remembered the briefly lived Instrument of Government of 1653 and were thus really acting very English! Which argument you probably weren't making because you weren't really saying anything at all aside from "I don't like immigrants" and then accusing me of not saying anything.
post #2138 of 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

This forum really needs an "I disagree!" button.

I disagree.
post #2139 of 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

PS - We have a Constitution. That's pretty different from England. I mean, unless you were making a brilliant argument that the American colonists had remembered the briefly lived Instrument of Government of 1653 and were thus really acting very English! Which argument you probably weren't making because you weren't really saying anything at all aside from "I don't like immigrants" and then accusing me of not saying anything.

The American constitution and other founding documents borrow quite a lot from English political ideas and practices. And yes, also from a lot of other European nations obviously. There are obvious differences but to pretend that those differences invalidate the ways in which America was like its European forebears is just wrong on its face. And in a broad sense America and England (along with the Netherlands and to a lesser extent various continental nations) developed similar democratic and middle class ideals over the next couple of centuries. I'm not really interested in writing competing history term papers with you about it because the larger point is obvious to anyone looking.

And Latin America developed into Latin America. Call me racist for noticing that, but I really don't care; the truth doesn't care about the fact that you insult it.
post #2140 of 8792
LOL look at that quick glide from "English" to "European forebears."
Edited by erictheobscure - 4/7/16 at 1:26pm
post #2141 of 8792
Okay, last comment for now since I want to get back to real work instead of replying to inanity.

That glide into "European forebears" makes it clear what you're after: not English nationalism (which would be a rather odd way to be an American jingoist) but just, uhh, Europeanness as great and superior. (See what I did there--I was being diplomatic.) And you think that "Latin American developed into Latin America" is a meaningful statement rather than an utterly stupid tautology. I take it that you don't see it as a tautology, and that the reason you don't is an implied, "Don't you see there's an ethos to that kind personhood that is indigenous to that region" that's offered as some sort of rationale. A rationale that leads up to your anti-immigrant position. But all of this is utterly stupid. The reasons that Latin America developed are complicated and have very much to do with Europeanness. If your point was, say, that the Portuguese had a very different agenda in Brazil than the English did in North America (largely extracting resources rather than settling/fleeing religious persecution), that might be a localized but interesting point. And you might then open onto different commitments (the relationship between national prestige/wealth and Roman Catholicism, on the one hand; a mixed kind of republicanism as a reaction to Protestant English developments, on the other). But all of this is assuming you wanted to take seriously the kinds of European-indigenous hybrids and conflicts that gave rise to different polities and different economies in the U.S. and in South America. But of course, you don't want to do any of this. You just want to imply heavily that brown people have shitty politics unlike the English--err, make that Europeans.
Edited by erictheobscure - 4/7/16 at 2:20pm
post #2142 of 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

That you're for more of it?

Basically. Romney's self-deportation plan was called racist. Anything other than "bring 'em on in" is considered xenophobic. Trump figured this and knew anything he said about immigration would be considered racist, so he might as well come out with a position that wins him the primary.
post #2143 of 8792
Just for the record you're all Sassenachs to me.
post #2144 of 8792
TIL a new ethnic slur.
post #2145 of 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Just for the record you're all Sassenachs to me.

 

All us white people just look the same to you, huh?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field