In Other News...

[prole]

Actually, at this point Kojak, I think any book at all would be an improvement for you.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Actually, at this point Kojak, I think any book at all would be an improvement for you.

 

You have no idea what, or how much I read, fuckwit.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yes, those are two responses, but that's a rather narrow framework from which to understand something as densely complex as 'immigration in America'. Outside of that official, mostly white, nativist historiography, immigrants themselves never had opinions worth hearing or acted in ways that made a contribution to changing the parameters of debate or the conditions of their existence? Are those experiences, voices, and agency something that we should be taking into account now, or are we just going to pay tribute to and reproduce the xenophobe/exploiter version of events?

19th century immigrants views have been saved fairly well and are definetly part of a basic history class - their narrative is not lost -however, their views were often no more enlightened then the natives - i'm sure you're aware of the irish hatred of blacks in new york, for example?

 

i am not paying tribute to the 2 poles i mentioned - i also would like to live in a compassionate land that makes up for its historical evils by continuing to welcome new people - nevertheless, i would be a great fool if i did not acknowledge that, historically, the vast population of our fair republic falls into 1 of the 2 camps i described, and thus we have a situation that is unlikely to change or get better

 

Clueless utopians have a problem with reality, especially since it always falls short of their misguided and unrealistic expectations.

 

[ivan]

Outside of that official, mostly white, nativist historiography, immigrants themselves never had opinions worth hearing or acted in ways that made a contribution to changing the parameters of debate or the conditions of their existence?

i'm also hardly ignorant of the pejoratively described "revisionist" historians out there, and while i don't classify myself as a disciple of chomsky or his brethern, i don't dismiss his conclusions out of hand

 

you might also recall that "immigrants" are hardly a static group, and that plenty of immigrant children went on to be the very writers of "mainstream" history you condemn

[prole]

19th century immigrants views have been saved fairly well and are definetly part of a basic history class - their narrative is not lost -however, their views were often no more enlightened then the natives - i'm sure you're aware of the irish hatred of blacks in new york, for example?

 

i am not paying tribute to the 2 poles i mentioned - i also would like to live in a compassionate land that makes up for its historical evils by continuing to welcome new people - nevertheless, i would be a great fool if i did not acknowledge that, historically, the vast population of our fair republic falls into 1 of the 2 camps i described, and thus we have a situation that is unlikely to change or get better

 

By accepting a frame of debate that suggests the only two poles that need to be accounted for in a discussion on American immigration are xenophobes and exploiters is giving them far more power to shape how we understand the issue than they deserve.

 

[j_b]

the problem, as i see it, is there are 2 classic polar views of "hey, immigrants are cool - you can exploit the shit out of them and they don't mouth off much - come on in if you can get here!" and "fuck immigrants - we should build a laser shield wall and murder every one of their little bitch babies that manage to crawl through it" - the problem then is some compromise is needed between the two groups, but there's little room to do that

 

These POVs you describe aren't polar opposite at all, because they are in fact held by the same camp (far right wing) directed at different demographics. To make it simple view A is mouthed by the equivalent of the Kock brothers while they finance the xenophobes articulating POV B. POV B is useful to those who hold POV A because those uppity immigrants have to be kept very needy so they come cheap, or there would be no point in employing them.

[ivan]

19th century immigrants views have been saved fairly well and are definetly part of a basic history class - their narrative is not lost -however, their views were often no more enlightened then the natives - i'm sure you're aware of the irish hatred of blacks in new york, for example?

 

i am not paying tribute to the 2 poles i mentioned - i also would like to live in a compassionate land that makes up for its historical evils by continuing to welcome new people - nevertheless, i would be a great fool if i did not acknowledge that, historically, the vast population of our fair republic falls into 1 of the 2 camps i described, and thus we have a situation that is unlikely to change or get better

 

By accepting a frame of debate that suggests the only two poles that need to be accounted for in a discussion on American immigration are xenophobes and exploiters is giving them far more power to shape how we understand the issue than they deserve.

feels like we're talking in circles - yes, of course all views on immigrants should be considered (let'em in and turn'em into soylent green - fawk yeah! salsa style!) - the reality is though, the 2 largest forces will tend to drown out the other - of course, immigrants can magnify and agitate to get thier narrative competitive, but usually by the time they've done that they've already merged with the mainstream, at which time they join one of the 2 large, pre-existing sides. is it ironic that so many descendants of immigrants want to build a siegfried line in the south? of course. but that's what it is.

[prole]

Outside of that official, mostly white, nativist historiography, immigrants themselves never had opinions worth hearing or acted in ways that made a contribution to changing the parameters of debate or the conditions of their existence?

i'm also hardly ignorant of the pejoratively described "revisionist" historians out there, and while i don't classify myself as a disciple of chomsky or his brethern, i don't dismiss his conclusions out of hand

 

you might also recall that "immigrants" are hardly a static group, and that plenty of immigrant children went on to be the very writers of "mainstream" history you condemn

 

I'm not interested in this kind of talking past each other, I'm sure we agree on and are interested in a lot of the same stuff. It is interesting that for all the complexity you're willing to show existed in previous periods is not reflected when you reduce the current immigration discourse to xenophobes vs. exploiters. Quite a bit more going on than that as it's clear you know.

[ivan]

These POVs you describe aren't polar opposite at all, because they are in fact held by the same camp (far right wing) directed at different demographics. To make it simple view A is mouthed by the equivalent of the Kock brothers while they finance the xenophobes articulating POV B. POV B is useful to those who hold POV A because those uppity immigrants have to be kept very needy so they come cheap, or there would be no point in employing them.

we pretty much live in a 1 party land, so that's hardly suprising - rich folks have the power and always will, and thus will control the argument

 

what concrete changes would you liek to see in immigration policy?

[prole]

Actually, at this point Kojak, I think any book at all would be an improvement for you.

 

You have no idea what, or how much I read, fuckwit.

 

You're not exactly showing us much, bro.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You're not exactly showing us much, bro.

 

from "narratives" and "memes" to "bro".

[prole]

You did say "lexicon", though. Apparently, "narrative" is a bridge too far...

[ivan]

It is interesting that for all the complexity you're willing to show existed in previous periods is not reflected when you reduce the current immigration discourse to xenophobes vs. exploiters.

in truth, in constructing the 2 poles, i threw in the exploitation thing off-handedly

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You did say "lexicon", though. Apparently, "narrative" is a bridge too far...

 

"narrative" comes straight from your progressive sheeple group-think material

[prole]

MAVERICK!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

MAVERICK!

 

If only everyone would just read the books prescribed by Prole, then they would see the light, and think properly. Exposure to these truths will result in a proper and complete education. Only the insane and stupid will fail to come to the same opinions and conclusions as Prole.

[prole]

I don't know if that's a fair assessment based on what I written here or not, I wouldn't be the one to say. What I do know is that in the years I've been here the only discernible opinion/worldview/stance you've ever shown is a fierce pride in your own aggressive ignorance. Get off the 'roids and get some psychiatric help.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't know if that's a fair assessment based on what I written here or not, I wouldn't be the one to say. What I do know is that in the years I've been here the only discernible opinion/worldview/stance you've ever shown is a fierce pride in your own aggressive ignorance. Get off the 'roids and get some psychiatric help.

 

You're such a joke. Really.

[prole]

I can only hope that you're a happy, fully-functioning, healthy individual enjoying meaningful relationships when you're not on this board. Good day.

[chirp]

Turn your brain on before you post again, Chirp. You too, Ivan.

Serious?

The image depicted the constant state of love those southern states have for certain types of people.

I thought spray was more open than that?

I guess "new" spray isn't really spray at all but a thicker version of the "metro sexual" forum.

 

What ev.

[joblo7]

Turn your brain on before you post again, Chirp. You too, Ivan.

 

 

fuck you jon!

[E-rock]

Yeah! Nobody's gonna tell us to turn our brains on! Fuck you, Jon!

[tvashtarkatena]

I can't find the ON button....

[billcoe]

fuck Thank you jon!

 

Lighten up.

[j_b]

we pretty much live in a 1 party land, so that's hardly suprising - rich folks have the power and always will, and thus will control the argument

 

what concrete changes would you liek to see in immigration policy?

 

Even in this one party land there are visions of history at odd with the dominant NARRATIVE. There has always been and there always will be.

 

It's difficult to talk about immigration policy without also discussing trade, employment, subsidies but I don't think there is any doubt we should be 100% fair with immigrants who are often victimized by our policies.