More seriously, my experience has been that while those folks do tend to be irresponsible in relation to the economic system in place, they really are a bunch of hard-working folks with solid family values. That is, they value family, not "family values" as the phrase has been used by various groups as shorthand for homophobia and transphobia. (Not to say that certain individuals don't display transphobia and homophobia, but... hell, on the whole, the Hispanic culture seems to be more comfortable with the idea that an individual may be a mix of male and female than WASPs... then there's machismo, yet it seems to be something that comes from within rather than something enforced from without, and yet you have accounts of cis males and trans women from within that culture feeling oppressed by machismo.)
Thuggery and "drug culture" on the other hand... these seem to be the effects of poverty and prohibition. It really is a culture war. Cannabis was basically outlawed in order to marginalize black culture, and that had an effect on the Hispanic population as well. Perhaps we'll see something else once cannabis starts to become legal again.
The problem I see with "valuing family" is that it causes people to defend and support dysfunction. There is nothing that makes your family members (particularly your extended family) more special than any random person on the street. Just look at random people: there's lots of them that have serious problems: they're assholes, sociopaths, liars, etc. These are normal human conditions. For instance, somewhere between 1 and 10 percent of the general population is sociopathic to some degree (estimates vary and there's a lot of debate about how high it is). Sociopaths aren't all in one family line; random people are just born that way. So the likelihood that someone in your clan is sociopathic is no different than for the population at large. But when some random coworker acts poorly, you don't coddle him or support him; instead, you stop acting nice to him, you try to avoid him. The problem with "valuing family" is that when a family member is a compulsive liar or abusive or sociopathic or whatever, the other family members will do anything they can to defend and support this person, even when it means screwing over some other (non-family) person in the process. In a nutshell, "valuing family" simply breeds dysfunction. It's better to treat family members no better than any other random, unrelated person. If some cousin is a great friend, wonderful. But if your uncle or nephew is an asshole, you shouldn't do any more for him than some random asshole you meet on the street. Sharing genetics is not a reason to give people special favors.
Can't disagree. I've found that one can place these things in order of thickness: water, blood, assigned sexual role.
It's a nice thought I'm sure is deeply embedded in mammalian instincts, family. Alongside your sentiment, I've observed that the idea of a fact that's to be kept in the family probably more often than not implies either child/spousal abuse or other criminal activities.
One thing I wish I could tell my younger self is that she was utterly deluded to think that the words "I love you" meant anything other than: "We own your body as property; and the only reason for your existence is to go out into the world, accumulate wealth, and use that wealth to provide us with grandchildren."
I would assume for most people, though, that the idea of family is somewhat more positive even for its flaws.
Alongside your sentiment, I've observed that the idea of a fact that's to be kept in the family probably more often than not implies either child/spousal abuse or other criminal activities.
The Mafia is really big on "family". I think that's a prime example of supporting dysfunction.
I will offer a concession -- I'll change every factually incorrect instance of "Mexicans" in the journal to the factually-correct "some Mexicans."
What I wrote is offensive? Too bad. Somebody is always going to write or say something that you will find offensive, and I find that the thought it provokes is much more important than it simply being offensive. Exactly why does it offend you? That's a question the offended should ask themselves.
That being said, I wrote it as therapy, therapy to help cope with the direct observations outlined in the journal. Direct observations I've seen throughout my life and am actually dealing with now. Yes, that's right, everything I wrote in that journal, the journal itself is not racist ranting copied from some racist website -- it is what I have observed directly throughout my lifetime and especially so now. I grew up in a place with a massive Hispanic majority, have dated many Hispanic women, and still live very close to the US-Mexico border.
In case you were curious, my makeup is a mix of Hispanic, Native-American, Scots-Irish, and European. Hardly a candidate for Nazi ubermensch, to be sure. But just because some things are uncomfortable for others to listen to doesn't make them any less true, and we should all agree that truth trumps political correctness. You are free to post your own journal about Whites, Mexicans, Blacks, or even Martians being benevolent or evil or anything in between; and if it is truthful it should stand.
Having posted a few comments that could be construed as being racist, I have found that people here become extremely offended at comments posted about so-called "colored" minorities, namely Mexicans and Blacks, but when I have posted comments (more than one, for sure) implying that Germans and Japanese are coprophiles, the P.C. Patrol is conspicuously silent. Not a peep out of anybody, in fact. Why is that? Given that, I surmise that critics of my racially-charged humor fall into three categories:
- Thin-skinned refugees from The Other Site who know me and have carried over their vendettas appropriately - "Colored" minorities who believe that it's okay to lambast races and ethnicities as long as it's not their race or ethnicity - "White-guilt" Caucasians living in gated communities who find time to become offended in between their trips to the playhouses and bathhouses
If the politically correct critics could be consistent and become upset at all racism, they may have a leg on which to stand, but that they choose to be offended at the slander of a few select groups speaks volumes about what they really believe under all those layers, rather than being champions of truth and justice.
Take for example this [soylentnews.org] comment I posted, which stirred up plenty of rancor for its apparently racist content. No racial slurs were used, and although the Ebonic tone was a bit patronizing, the content was (again) not copied from a racist website but was in fact a direct personal observation (It was a funny story, actually, as I was the only white guy hanging out with a group of Black people in Los Angeles, we were drinking and smoking joints, and I pulled out the hemostats I preferred to use as a roach clip when they laughed at me and said, "Dude, just use your nails, like this;" one of them proudly pinching the blunt roach between thumbnail and the nail of her middle finger). Any critics of mine here know nothing of my aptitude of race-relations in real-life, and if they did they would probably slap me on the back and buy me a beer.
So, although I don't have an opinion of you personally, you are not in fact a "heavy believer in freedom of thought," because you negated everything you said with that big " but..." on the ass-end of your sentence. You may be bullshitting yourself, but you're not bullshitting me. If you want to cry to the leadership about getting me banned, go for it. If they do ban me I won't try to linger and troll like I did with the other site. There's just no sport in troll-bombing Soylent News, it would be like drawing a swastika on a defenseless baby's forehead.
And you know what? I actually like it here, and I also say really informative thought-provoking shit that doesn't happen to offend a lot of people. So you can either throw the baby out with the bathwater, or you yourself or any others offended can stop being crybabies.
It's not offensive to me because I'm not Mexican, I'm just warning you about what the backlash could be. I believe that there are distinct personality traits between different races, but that treating everyone in that race the same as a result is wrong.
-- "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
Let this supposed "backlash" solve itself, if they don't want me here, then I won't be here. Then all the other users can live inside their own sterile bubble unafraid of being offended.
I believe that there are distinct personality traits between different races
Really? You sure these traits aren't just the result of cultural reinforcement from birth? It's the nature vs. nurture argument all over again. Certain cultures do seem to prefer and reward certain personality traits which others do not. For instance, in American culture, being loud and obnoxious is generally well-regarded, and such people are looked to as managers and leaders. This behavior is so prevalent among Americans that they're frequently called "Ugly Americans" when they visit places like western Europe, where being loud and boorish is not looked upon well. Other cultures are very different, with Canada being a good example since it's right next door to the US.
From all my interactions with Mexicans (which is a lot, I lived in Arizona for 12 years), my observation is that they're even louder and more annoying than Americans, on average, and by quite a lot.
But it's entirely reasonable to think that taking a newborn from one culture and raising him/her in a totally different culture will likely result in very different behavior; a child who's loud and boorish will experience a lot of negative reinforcement of that behavior in Japan, for instance.
You wrote: "because you negated everything you said with that big " but..."
It's funny when I got to the point of reading that, as I was originally thinking of responding to this thread on the topic of using "but". How about this: "I'm not a racist, but...."
In my experience, people who often say things such as:
"I'm often accused of being racist..."
"I'm not a racist, however..."
"I get banned and labelled 'troll' everywhere be I just 'speak the truth' about race..."....Those people...are often racist and should do a little self introspection and/or educate themselves.
I used to be all for the immigrants, the little brown oppressed people, let 'em come to America and better themselves and all that.
Then I lived in SoCal for 28 years, and saw the reality of the situation.
Now I'm all for gun turrets at the border.
I've got nothing against 'em for being Mexicans, or immigrants. What I've got against 'em are the ones who come here and leech, or bring Mexico with them. If you want to come to America, fine, but when you do, become an *American*.
BTW, tho we don't often agree, I'm totally against banning anyone for speaking out or even for being annoying. That's one reason I never mod down. I don't believe in silencing anyone, no matter what they have to say.
-- And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
The problem is that these aren't really issues of Mexican culture. They're issues of impoverished immigrants. Of course, most of those in American right now do tend to be Mexican -- because it's a hell of a lot easier to get here from Mexico than, say, Sudan. If you're poor in Sudan, you can't afford to get to the USA, you try for somewhere closer. If you're poor in Mexico, sneaking across the border is a pretty cheap way to vastly increase your earnings. So of course a lot of them do it.
Why do they rely on family? Because they're broke and that's all they have. Why do they stop when they get here? Because they have better alternatives -- their family is pretty broke too, especially by American standards, but the rest of the country isn't. Why are the families in Orange County and such not like this? Because Orange County is a fuckin expensive place to live! They were either rich when they came here, or they were lucky and determined enough to fight their way to the top.
Same things were said of Irish immigrants when they first started coming here. Same was said of the Chinese. Of Africans. Always the same story, and always ascribing the problems to the *wrong cause*. The problem here is that it makes these problems something inherent to these people. It makes it *their problem*, when really it's *our problem* -- if people have no other options, they *will* turn to crime. Not saying it's *right*, but it's the truth. We can fix it by beating the shit out of them, or we can fix it by helping them out.
With a few exceptions for sociopaths and psychopaths and such, crime -- at least the type you're discussing (ie, not white collar crime -- that shit is just greed) is largely caused by desperation. And poverty causes desperation. Wanna cut down on crime rates? Try redistributing some of Gates' millions. Get Apple to start spending the billions they're hoarding in the bank. Make GM pay their fuckin' taxes, because we know the second the government gets that money it's gonna be spent, *hopefully* towards social welfare programs or construction and not to their defense contractor buddies...though yes, that corruption is another thing we gotta fight as well.
Oh, almost forgot about the drugs -- the violence associated is because it's illegal and they can't resolve disputes with cops and courts. The reason they choose to sell it is because that's the best paying job they can get. Even with no money and no education you can still make a fuckin fortune selling weed. Sure beats flippin' burgers for minimum wage...and the best way to fix THAT is to just legalize the shit so legal sources will drive them out of business. Just like what we're seeing in Colorado and Washington -- it's a bit early still, but so far the drop in crime is around 15%, and state revenue is up by millions.
You wrote: "This is something every non-immigran American like me can see"
Just curious, assuming you're human as I'm not aware of any native N.American animals which can write, what exact type of "non-immigrant" are you?
Best guess would be you're claiming such as you're an "American Indian", aboriginal. Must be... What tribe are you from? Maybe we're related - I'm about 1/16 Cherokee, tho you'd not guess from my typical Irish/English physical traits.
While I understand people's rationale to call themselves native, or as we call them here in Canada, "First Nations", any human living on N.American soil is an "immigrant". Hmmmm....perhaps "First Immigrants" would be better to call those who immigrated more than 10,000 years ago. However, as science has proven, we are all "out of Africa".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:13PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:13PM (#30976)
Everyone's racist to some degree if they're honest about themselves.
The only one we call out bigtime tho is white people vs. any other race.
Heck we'll even include other races into the whites if it serves our purpose of being able to scream racisim. We like that argument. George zimmerman was from peru.. He got included as 'white' for the purposes of turning that trial into a race issue.
Personally I don't have a problem with some mexicans at all. A couple other races (and nationalities) i do have a major problem with tho. <shrug>
I'll probably get called "racist" for this, but it seems to me that some cultures fit together much better than other cultures, and some cultures just don't get along very well at all. I think a lot of cases where people are crying "racism!" are really cases where there's a culture clash, and people in one culture simply don't like the values and ways of people in another culture. The reason they're complaining is because, for some reason, they're in a situation where the two cultures are being forced together, and it isn't working out well.
For an example, let's look at history. Back in the days of the "New World", European explorers and settlers came to the Americas. We've all heard about the horrors that Europeans inflicted on the Native Americans. This is obviously a case of clashing cultures: the Natives had a culture where land was not owned, the people were frequently nomadic, etc. Europeans came over, with this concept of land ownership, started claiming everything for themselves, building towns and cities, etc. When conflict arose, the Europeans with their superior weapons generally won out. And conflict did arise, frequently, with an absolutely huge flood of new immigrants from Europe coming to the Americas and pushing out the Natives, who used land in an entirely different way. So, were the Natives "racist" for not liking the white people? They had very good reasons for disliking them. Fast-forward to today, and the Natives are completely marginalized, their numbers devastated, and their culture mostly destroyed. Unchecked, uncontrolled immigration did not go very well for them.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by velex on Saturday April 12 2014, @09:34AM
Hey, I like mariachi music, you insensitive clod!
More seriously, my experience has been that while those folks do tend to be irresponsible in relation to the economic system in place, they really are a bunch of hard-working folks with solid family values. That is, they value family, not "family values" as the phrase has been used by various groups as shorthand for homophobia and transphobia. (Not to say that certain individuals don't display transphobia and homophobia, but... hell, on the whole, the Hispanic culture seems to be more comfortable with the idea that an individual may be a mix of male and female than WASPs... then there's machismo, yet it seems to be something that comes from within rather than something enforced from without, and yet you have accounts of cis males and trans women from within that culture feeling oppressed by machismo.)
Thuggery and "drug culture" on the other hand... these seem to be the effects of poverty and prohibition. It really is a culture war. Cannabis was basically outlawed in order to marginalize black culture, and that had an effect on the Hispanic population as well. Perhaps we'll see something else once cannabis starts to become legal again.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 14 2014, @01:17PM
The problem I see with "valuing family" is that it causes people to defend and support dysfunction. There is nothing that makes your family members (particularly your extended family) more special than any random person on the street. Just look at random people: there's lots of them that have serious problems: they're assholes, sociopaths, liars, etc. These are normal human conditions. For instance, somewhere between 1 and 10 percent of the general population is sociopathic to some degree (estimates vary and there's a lot of debate about how high it is). Sociopaths aren't all in one family line; random people are just born that way. So the likelihood that someone in your clan is sociopathic is no different than for the population at large. But when some random coworker acts poorly, you don't coddle him or support him; instead, you stop acting nice to him, you try to avoid him. The problem with "valuing family" is that when a family member is a compulsive liar or abusive or sociopathic or whatever, the other family members will do anything they can to defend and support this person, even when it means screwing over some other (non-family) person in the process. In a nutshell, "valuing family" simply breeds dysfunction. It's better to treat family members no better than any other random, unrelated person. If some cousin is a great friend, wonderful. But if your uncle or nephew is an asshole, you shouldn't do any more for him than some random asshole you meet on the street. Sharing genetics is not a reason to give people special favors.
(Score: 1) by velex on Tuesday April 15 2014, @01:11AM
Can't disagree. I've found that one can place these things in order of thickness: water, blood, assigned sexual role.
It's a nice thought I'm sure is deeply embedded in mammalian instincts, family. Alongside your sentiment, I've observed that the idea of a fact that's to be kept in the family probably more often than not implies either child/spousal abuse or other criminal activities.
One thing I wish I could tell my younger self is that she was utterly deluded to think that the words "I love you" meant anything other than: "We own your body as property; and the only reason for your existence is to go out into the world, accumulate wealth, and use that wealth to provide us with grandchildren."
I would assume for most people, though, that the idea of family is somewhat more positive even for its flaws.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 15 2014, @12:17PM
Alongside your sentiment, I've observed that the idea of a fact that's to be kept in the family probably more often than not implies either child/spousal abuse or other criminal activities.
The Mafia is really big on "family". I think that's a prime example of supporting dysfunction.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Saturday April 12 2014, @10:00AM
I'm a heavy believer in freedom of thought -- even radical stuff, but please, don't go posting stuff like this. It's offensive and gets you no points.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday April 12 2014, @08:20PM
I will offer a concession -- I'll change every factually incorrect instance of "Mexicans" in the journal to the factually-correct "some Mexicans."
What I wrote is offensive? Too bad. Somebody is always going to write or say something that you will find offensive, and I find that the thought it provokes is much more important than it simply being offensive. Exactly why does it offend you? That's a question the offended should ask themselves.
That being said, I wrote it as therapy, therapy to help cope with the direct observations outlined in the journal. Direct observations I've seen throughout my life and am actually dealing with now. Yes, that's right, everything I wrote in that journal, the journal itself is not racist ranting copied from some racist website -- it is what I have observed directly throughout my lifetime and especially so now. I grew up in a place with a massive Hispanic majority, have dated many Hispanic women, and still live very close to the US-Mexico border.
In case you were curious, my makeup is a mix of Hispanic, Native-American, Scots-Irish, and European. Hardly a candidate for Nazi ubermensch, to be sure. But just because some things are uncomfortable for others to listen to doesn't make them any less true, and we should all agree that truth trumps political correctness. You are free to post your own journal about Whites, Mexicans, Blacks, or even Martians being benevolent or evil or anything in between; and if it is truthful it should stand.
Having posted a few comments that could be construed as being racist, I have found that people here become extremely offended at comments posted about so-called "colored" minorities, namely Mexicans and Blacks, but when I have posted comments (more than one, for sure) implying that Germans and Japanese are coprophiles, the P.C. Patrol is conspicuously silent. Not a peep out of anybody, in fact. Why is that? Given that, I surmise that critics of my racially-charged humor fall into three categories:
- Thin-skinned refugees from The Other Site who know me and have carried over their vendettas appropriately
- "Colored" minorities who believe that it's okay to lambast races and ethnicities as long as it's not their race or ethnicity
- "White-guilt" Caucasians living in gated communities who find time to become offended in between their trips to the playhouses and bathhouses
If the politically correct critics could be consistent and become upset at all racism, they may have a leg on which to stand, but that they choose to be offended at the slander of a few select groups speaks volumes about what they really believe under all those layers, rather than being champions of truth and justice.
Take for example this [soylentnews.org] comment I posted, which stirred up plenty of rancor for its apparently racist content. No racial slurs were used, and although the Ebonic tone was a bit patronizing, the content was (again) not copied from a racist website but was in fact a direct personal observation (It was a funny story, actually, as I was the only white guy hanging out with a group of Black people in Los Angeles, we were drinking and smoking joints, and I pulled out the hemostats I preferred to use as a roach clip when they laughed at me and said, "Dude, just use your nails, like this;" one of them proudly pinching the blunt roach between thumbnail and the nail of her middle finger). Any critics of mine here know nothing of my aptitude of race-relations in real-life, and if they did they would probably slap me on the back and buy me a beer.
So, although I don't have an opinion of you personally, you are not in fact a "heavy believer in freedom of thought," because you negated everything you said with that big " but..." on the ass-end of your sentence. You may be bullshitting yourself, but you're not bullshitting me. If you want to cry to the leadership about getting me banned, go for it. If they do ban me I won't try to linger and troll like I did with the other site. There's just no sport in troll-bombing Soylent News, it would be like drawing a swastika on a defenseless baby's forehead.
And you know what? I actually like it here, and I also say really informative thought-provoking shit that doesn't happen to offend a lot of people. So you can either throw the baby out with the bathwater, or you yourself or any others offended can stop being crybabies.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Sunday April 13 2014, @04:31AM
It's not offensive to me because I'm not Mexican, I'm just warning you about what the backlash could be. I believe that there are distinct personality traits between different races, but that treating everyone in that race the same as a result is wrong.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 13 2014, @05:12AM
Let this supposed "backlash" solve itself, if they don't want me here, then I won't be here. Then all the other users can live inside their own sterile bubble unafraid of being offended.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 14 2014, @08:41PM
I believe that there are distinct personality traits between different races
Really? You sure these traits aren't just the result of cultural reinforcement from birth? It's the nature vs. nurture argument all over again. Certain cultures do seem to prefer and reward certain personality traits which others do not. For instance, in American culture, being loud and obnoxious is generally well-regarded, and such people are looked to as managers and leaders. This behavior is so prevalent among Americans that they're frequently called "Ugly Americans" when they visit places like western Europe, where being loud and boorish is not looked upon well. Other cultures are very different, with Canada being a good example since it's right next door to the US.
From all my interactions with Mexicans (which is a lot, I lived in Arizona for 12 years), my observation is that they're even louder and more annoying than Americans, on average, and by quite a lot.
But it's entirely reasonable to think that taking a newborn from one culture and raising him/her in a totally different culture will likely result in very different behavior; a child who's loud and boorish will experience a lot of negative reinforcement of that behavior in Japan, for instance.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:33PM
You wrote:
"because you negated everything you said with that big " but..."
It's funny when I got to the point of reading that, as I was originally thinking of responding to this thread on the topic of using "but".
How about this:
"I'm not a racist, but...."
In my experience, people who often say things such as: ....Those people...are often racist and should do a little self introspection and/or educate themselves.
"I'm often accused of being racist..."
"I'm not a racist, however..."
"I get banned and labelled 'troll' everywhere be I just 'speak the truth' about race..."
(Score: 1) by Reziac on Monday April 14 2014, @03:00AM
I used to be all for the immigrants, the little brown oppressed people, let 'em come to America and better themselves and all that.
Then I lived in SoCal for 28 years, and saw the reality of the situation.
Now I'm all for gun turrets at the border.
I've got nothing against 'em for being Mexicans, or immigrants. What I've got against 'em are the ones who come here and leech, or bring Mexico with them. If you want to come to America, fine, but when you do, become an *American*.
BTW, tho we don't often agree, I'm totally against banning anyone for speaking out or even for being annoying. That's one reason I never mod down. I don't believe in silencing anyone, no matter what they have to say.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Monday April 14 2014, @08:51PM
The problem is that these aren't really issues of Mexican culture. They're issues of impoverished immigrants. Of course, most of those in American right now do tend to be Mexican -- because it's a hell of a lot easier to get here from Mexico than, say, Sudan. If you're poor in Sudan, you can't afford to get to the USA, you try for somewhere closer. If you're poor in Mexico, sneaking across the border is a pretty cheap way to vastly increase your earnings. So of course a lot of them do it.
Why do they rely on family? Because they're broke and that's all they have. Why do they stop when they get here? Because they have better alternatives -- their family is pretty broke too, especially by American standards, but the rest of the country isn't. Why are the families in Orange County and such not like this? Because Orange County is a fuckin expensive place to live! They were either rich when they came here, or they were lucky and determined enough to fight their way to the top.
Same things were said of Irish immigrants when they first started coming here. Same was said of the Chinese. Of Africans. Always the same story, and always ascribing the problems to the *wrong cause*. The problem here is that it makes these problems something inherent to these people. It makes it *their problem*, when really it's *our problem* -- if people have no other options, they *will* turn to crime. Not saying it's *right*, but it's the truth. We can fix it by beating the shit out of them, or we can fix it by helping them out.
With a few exceptions for sociopaths and psychopaths and such, crime -- at least the type you're discussing (ie, not white collar crime -- that shit is just greed) is largely caused by desperation. And poverty causes desperation. Wanna cut down on crime rates? Try redistributing some of Gates' millions. Get Apple to start spending the billions they're hoarding in the bank. Make GM pay their fuckin' taxes, because we know the second the government gets that money it's gonna be spent, *hopefully* towards social welfare programs or construction and not to their defense contractor buddies...though yes, that corruption is another thing we gotta fight as well.
Oh, almost forgot about the drugs -- the violence associated is because it's illegal and they can't resolve disputes with cops and courts. The reason they choose to sell it is because that's the best paying job they can get. Even with no money and no education you can still make a fuckin fortune selling weed. Sure beats flippin' burgers for minimum wage...and the best way to fix THAT is to just legalize the shit so legal sources will drive them out of business. Just like what we're seeing in Colorado and Washington -- it's a bit early still, but so far the drop in crime is around 15%, and state revenue is up by millions.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Sunday April 13 2014, @06:34PM
You wrote:
"This is something every non-immigran American like me can see"
Just curious, assuming you're human as I'm not aware of any native N.American animals which can write, what exact type of "non-immigrant" are you?
Best guess would be you're claiming such as you're an "American Indian", aboriginal. Must be...
What tribe are you from? Maybe we're related - I'm about 1/16 Cherokee, tho you'd not guess from my typical Irish/English physical traits.
While I understand people's rationale to call themselves native, or as we call them here in Canada, "First Nations", any human living on N.American soil is an "immigrant". Hmmmm....perhaps "First Immigrants" would be better to call those who immigrated more than 10,000 years ago.
However, as science has proven, we are all "out of Africa".
(Score: 2) by Aighearach on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:02PM
In the words of a great man, "What a maroon!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:13PM
The only one we call out bigtime tho is white people vs. any other race.
Heck we'll even include other races into the whites if it serves our purpose of being able to scream racisim. We like that argument.
George zimmerman was from peru.. He got included as 'white' for the purposes of turning that trial into a race issue.
Personally I don't have a problem with some mexicans at all. A couple other races (and nationalities) i do have a major problem with tho.
<shrug>
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 14 2014, @01:27PM
I'll probably get called "racist" for this, but it seems to me that some cultures fit together much better than other cultures, and some cultures just don't get along very well at all. I think a lot of cases where people are crying "racism!" are really cases where there's a culture clash, and people in one culture simply don't like the values and ways of people in another culture. The reason they're complaining is because, for some reason, they're in a situation where the two cultures are being forced together, and it isn't working out well.
For an example, let's look at history. Back in the days of the "New World", European explorers and settlers came to the Americas. We've all heard about the horrors that Europeans inflicted on the Native Americans. This is obviously a case of clashing cultures: the Natives had a culture where land was not owned, the people were frequently nomadic, etc. Europeans came over, with this concept of land ownership, started claiming everything for themselves, building towns and cities, etc. When conflict arose, the Europeans with their superior weapons generally won out. And conflict did arise, frequently, with an absolutely huge flood of new immigrants from Europe coming to the Americas and pushing out the Natives, who used land in an entirely different way. So, were the Natives "racist" for not liking the white people? They had very good reasons for disliking them. Fast-forward to today, and the Natives are completely marginalized, their numbers devastated, and their culture mostly destroyed. Unchecked, uncontrolled immigration did not go very well for them.