CL Mullins & Oaktree,
I'm not sure that I exactly said I was "familiar" with your prior posts on immigration or any other subject for that matter. Where did I say that? I know that I have read/seen some of them and I think that I have a general idea of your positions (which I think are largely in line with my feelings -- until this thread, that is). However, I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of all your posts, nor do I particularly care to. I have seen your names many times but that doesn't mean that I have read everything you post or want to. So, the word "familiar" seems like an overstatement. More importantly, though, I really don't see how my username or your username or your prior posts affect this discussion.
Is there some kind of points system for people like you and your self-described old, white, male buddies that comment on nearly everything -- points that can be cashed in for fabulous prizes & cash or something like that? What is your fixation on referencing past posts and using the same names?? Seems odd to say the least.
I will review the information you presented from the Southern Poverty Law Center. I may have read it before. I know that I have read several things from them on other issues and have not been impressed with their objectivity. From what I recall, they lean heavily left of center, sort of like the ACLU -- squarely correct sometimes on some things but way, way off at other times. HOWEVER, I do know that I have read the NCLR statement (on its website) on their version of the meaning and history of "LaRaza." And their version is directly contradictory to other, much more neutral sources such as Wikipedia. Did you read Wikipedia? I have not yet read your entire info. most recently posted above. However, it sounds like you have not. You should always question your sources, boys.
But, as I said, I will review it and will make a reasonable current search for any other information that appears to be non-agenda based -- which is often difficult to find. I have done that before but will do it again. Despite your absurd accusations, I try pretty hard to keep an open and flexible mind. I often have split/mixed opinions on many subjects such as abortion and healthcare.
The question is, though, do you have an open and flexible mind? Will you review information not so flattering to La Raza and similar Latino rights groups? Do you routinely question your own opinions and positions or are you rigid and dogmatic? I would like to think the best of you.
However, frankly, some parts of your posts on this thread would indicate otherwise. For example, the ridiculous accusation that I am a KKK comrade in arms. How many times on this thread have I suggested a position that would reduce white power/influence by suggesting that immigration should be balanced in favor of various peoples and groups not just heavily favor Latinos? At one point, I even said that the old white guard of Irish/Scotch/English influence is and should be fading. What sort of white supremacist would say things like that? After saying those things, I can certainly forget that very real chance you soo firmly think I had and wanted to have of getting that honorary white robe. Oh well, it's almost Labor Day. So, I couldn't have worn it for very long anyway. Seriously though, guys, keep it real. Don't be clueless.
OK, Bill. You can crawl into bed with whomever you choose. It's a free country.
However, you may want to reconsider your admiration for this line of thinking. Here is an article put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center (you should look up that particular organization's history if you are unfamiliar with it) about the mischaracterization of the NCLR as racist:
"..In a recent posting to National Review Online, long-time columnist John Derbyshire (right) attacked the nation’s largest Latino civil rights organization, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), for the last two words in its name, which Derbyshire translated as “The Race.” With that, Derbyshire joined thousands of other Americans who use the organization’s name to claim — entirely without foundation — that NCLR is a race-based, supremacist organization.
Said Derbyshire: “The idea, as I had it explained to me, is that by blending the European race with the Mesoamerican, Mexico has brought forth a new race, the mestizo or bronze race, which is claimed to be superior to both the contributing races, I suppose by dint of hybrid vigor. This bronze über-race is ‘La Raza.’”
Next time, Derbyshire — who has described himself as a “racist,” albeit a “mild and tolerant” one — might want to consult a dictionary, or perhaps a linguist, before he goes public with his proposed translations of the Spanish language. If he had, he’d have learned that “La Raza,” in the context of the organization’s name, doesn’t mean “The Race” at all. In fact, the term is much more commonly translated as “the people” or “the community” and it is intended to be inclusive, encompassing the blending of European, African, and indigenous peoples in the Americas.
Derbyshire might even have paid a visit to NCLR’s website, which includes a nuanced explanation of the term: “While it is true that one meaning ‘raza’ in Spanish is indeed ‘race,’ in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. Translating our name as ‘the race’ is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. ‘Hispanic’ is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.”
The NCLR site continues: “The term ‘La Raza’ has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as ‘the people,’ or, according to some scholars, ‘the Hispanic people of the New World.’ The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating ‘La Raza’ to mean ‘the race’ implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, ‘La Raza Cósmica,’ meaning the ‘cosmic people,’ was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.”
Had he bothered to check it out — rather than simply grasping for an argument to support his angry nativism — Derbyshire also would have found that the NCLR site clearly condemns ethnic separatist organizations. The group even has repeatedly disavowed certain founding documents of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanos de Aztlan (MEChA), a fellow Latino rights organization that is not a racist separatist group but did, more than 40 years ago, publish what NCLR characterizes as “inappropriate rhetoric.” NCLR publicly condemns Voz de Aztlan, a virulently anti-Semitic outfit that has long been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
But none of this prevented Derbyshire from characterizing NCLR as a hotbed of racism, with “published material [that] shouts an ethic of racial triumphalism.” He argues that NCLR publications belong on the library shelf next to materials from bona fide hate groups like the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations. In employing this kind of propaganda — almost identical to what groups like the Klan falsely claim about organizations such as the multiracial NAACP — Derbyshire sounds similar to many on the radical right. For example, the hate group American Patrol, whose leader Glenn Spencer has spoken at several white supremacist events, regularly refers to the NCLR as the “Race Mob” or the “Tan Klan.” His close friend and fellow racist Barbara Coe — who is a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that has described blacks as “a retrograde species of humanity” — characterizes NCLR similarly.
It’s not much of a surprise that Derbyshire has taken up against NCLR, given his attachment to organizations like the anti-immigrant hate website VDARE, named after Virginia Dare, said to be the first white child born in the New World (see, for example, here, here and here for 2008 posts). In 2005, Derbyshire took up for the rabid British xenophobe Enoch Powell, who warned in his infamous 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech that mass immigration would destroy the United Kingdom. Derbyshire also has called those who support multiculturalism “pod people, whose nervous systems have been taken over by alien intelligences.”
In his latest diatribe, Derbyshire rages at the acceptance by the mainstream press and many corporate sponsors of NCLR. “How,” he fumes, “do they get away with it?”
That question might well be directed to Derbyshire, a British native who became a naturalized American citizen in 2002 — after having illegally overstayed his own visa here by nearly five years..."
I'm not interested in arguing with you, as you seem to be articulating some peculiar form of apologetics in defense of an anti-Hispanic racism. Which is pretty clearly indefensible, in my opinion.
So I guess you can call me clueless, if the clue you are trying to pass off on me, is why I need to be racist against Hispanic folks. Yep. Right. I'm straight clueless about that business...
You can read what we have written about immigration because we have maintained these personas for quite sometime. You say that you are familiar with them. You could have done the same but choose not to log your anonymous opinions for reference sake.
So go back and read what our opinions are of immigration, we can only guess at the breadth of your world view.
CL Mullins & Arlington Pop:
There are some pretty valid reasons for why I prefer to remain anonymous and those reasons don't have the slightest iota to do with racism of any kind, form or shape. Did you think of that? I am guessing not.
Furthermore, I care not that you are white, older men. Really, what does injecting your own race, age and sex have to do with the conversation??
If anything, that exhibits your own prejudicial or at least narrow-minded, pigeon-holed mentalities.
If you really must know, I am a person of mixed race/ethnicity. Though most of my ancestors originate from a completely different part of the world, my people and I have light brown skin and jet black hair and what are generally called dark features. Though I grew up in white culture and generally identify as such, I could probably pass for some variation or degree of Hispanic - quite easily. I even speak more than a little Spanish.
So, this whole notion of yours that I am some sort of closet KKK member is beyond absurd. It either shows that you haven't been paying attention to the conversation or those old, white, male blinders of yours are firmly glued to your faces and implanted into your brains.
See there guys, you're not the only one over 40. I actually know what blinders are. Now, this will really blow your old, white, male minds. My first telephone had a rotary dial. So, get over yourself!!!! You are not the sole arbiters of earlier generations and YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ALL OF US.
Now, back to the relevant part of the discussion. My point was and still is that intentionally creating or permitting imbalances in immigration policy (i.e., heavily favoring one race/ethnicity/nation/culture) over others is unwise, unfair and dangerous on many levels.
It's not like we had a choice in the earlier generations that firmly implanted the white dominated (and yes white oppressive) regime. But, we have a choice now. So, let's not make the same mistake with just a different skin color/ethnicity/culture.
That's it. How you equate that as being inherently racist is incredible. Above, I even state that I fear some Latino organizations like La Raza (Hello, "the race") are, in fact, no better than the KKK. If you don't believe me, google "La Raza." Read the Wikipedia page. Sure, in these p.r. savvy times, La Raza now tries to reinterpret and de-emphasize their past to the point of even trying to deny the actual meaning of the word. But, they can't re-write their own history or the fact that many within their organization still hold those beliefs.
As far as pointing out individuals who I believe have a biased, less than open & honest agenda when it comes to immigration policy and specifically Latino immigration policy, I have done that. Do Ashby/LaRosa/Latino Memphis/LaRaza ring a bell? Other than drawing you a flow chart (another old person's word), at this point, I don't know how I could make that any more explicit.
I have heard all this before.
CL and I are older white men who have been around long enough to have some experience with racism.
We know it when we see and hear it.
The words you use, and the arguments you make, are the same ones we heard fifty years ago. Only then the words and arguments were directed against African-Americans and Jews. Same ideas. Same vague threats that one (or the other) going to take over and extract revenge. That they are going to seize power by outbreeding the Anglo majority, or by grasping all economic power, or both. It was all so very clear to those who really looked closely, so very clear. The rest of us were asleep and just needed to wake up! They are coming after you!
Deutschland Erwache, indeed.
Now, I have no doubt that the Latino community is cursed by having among its members the same kind of race bigots and race hustlers that plague the African American community, and whose chief aim it is to either enrich themselves or increase their political power by the manipulation of their ethnic or racial group.
But they are easily identified , so if you have a problem with what they say, have at them as individuals.
The rest of your several posts are pure Klanspeak, instantly recognizable to anyone who actually lived through the 60's, and the birth of the Civil Rights Movement. My guess is that you don't wear a sheet, but otherwise you are an intellectual comrade to the KKK.
Yes, i have heard this all before, Billy.
It was shit then and it is shit now.
Since you elect to change names in your postings, we can't reflect on your past as you can with Oak and APop. Since I can reread their posts, I got to tell you, if these Two find your opinions clueless and racist, you are clueless and racist, and by that measure far beyond reason, or referral.
And you are an impediment to the discussion.
To a substantial degree, individuals are products of their race/ethnicity. It is no accident that lions live and move in prides, wolves in packs, birds in flocks and insects in swarms. Humans, of course, are more advanced and are capable of free thinking and free action independent and apart from their group -- at least sometimes. However, for the most part, individuals behave in line with the rest of their respective group, their respective racial/ethnic identity. It is so much easier and more pleasant to be a conformist than an outcast or misfit.
On top of this, all humans share in common certain traits and flaws like greed, lust, jealously and ambition. Mix lots of individuals together of various races/ethnicities together (especially in badly lop-sided numbers with disparate levels of power/influence) with universal human flaws and you get division, oppression, persecution, subjugation, suffering and tyranny followed by their most famous love child -- violence/war/ethnic cleansing.
Yes, the oppressors are named Obama or Hitler rather than Joe or Juan. After all, it would have been pretty tough for Anne Frank to oppress Adolf Hitler. However, all or most of the oppressors started out as a Joe or a Juan or the son of a historically oppressed/persecuted Joe, Sr. or Juan, Sr. And then one day young and strong Joe or Juan, full of anger and resentment, decided that enough was enough and decided to do something about that old oppressor. Unfortunately, in the process, Joe or Juan usually become the new oppressor.
Oh brother where art thou?????? Though, CL Mullins and I may not completely understand or agree with each other, at least he is trying and gets a significant part of what I am saying. You, on the hand. To borrow one of your favorite words, the phrase "thick as shit" is starting to come to mind.
But here's one last attempt at trying to effectively communicate with you. What is the title of the above article? Who wrote the above article? Who or what organization/movement do those authors more or less represent? What second organization is funding, in substantial part, the first organization. What is the agenda of the second organization? Regarding the numerous articles that these two authors have published and continue to publish on this site/paper about Latino immigration, do they strike you as fair and balanced pieces of writing in the context of an opinion article or do they strike you as so consistently riddled with factual, legal and logical errors and omissions as to essentially constitute willful, biased, propaganda designed to misguide the public into supporting amnesty for illegals (especially illegal Latinos) as well as wide open borders for future Latino immigrants?
Now, if you still don't get it, you might want to start boning-up on your lawn care and restaurant worker skills because there are tens of millions of legal and illegal Latinos in this country who are younger, stronger, smarter and more ambitious than you who do get it. Good luck surviving - much less prospering!! You'll need all the luck you can get because I've always heard that revenge is a bitch. In fact, some of my ancestors used to have a saying: "Revenge is a dish best served cold."
I have read your post thoughtfully.
When you post something other than racist shit, I will be more thoughtful in my replies.
I must thank you for one thing, though.
The Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement are examples of white oppression?
Damn, who knew?
You appear to suggest that an ethnicity rather than individuals are a threat and so continue the divisiveness that is the root of our republic and its tendrils that extend southward. Immigration is a threat to most people since before 1492 because we abide a non cooperative society. The oppressors are named Obama, Calderon, Bush, or Nieto, not Joe or Juan.
But with both establishment political parties pursuing the same policy results, working people should not have to bear the cost and share our shrinking stocks.
Unfortunately our media seems to only recognize the bozo extremity of populism and the racist domination of the debate.
I am usually a big fan of yours, but this time you are the one with the clue deficit.
Yes, thank god, you finally got the posit correct. On the projection, no, that's a strike - not even applicable to me. Perhaps, you are the one who is actually projecting there.
If you don't think that Latinos can and will oppress if given the chance, then you, "Senor," are a fool that doesn't know much about history or human nature. Somehow, you apparently think that oppression is the exclusive domain of whites. That is simply not true.
All that is required for an oppressor to be born is to have power while others have little or no power. And when a group/people who historically didn't have much power then rise to dominance and power, then those people are usually even more oppressive than the regime they replaced.
Bill. Stop. You are in serious clue deficit.
If you posit that Latinos are going to be "oppressers," Senor, I would submit you're projecting.
To Packrat, CL Mullins and Arlington Pop,
Rather than resorting to potty-mouth and trying to come-up with snappy two-liners just to get your name on yet another board, please do try to read and write thoughtfully and keep up with the conversation.
It is not anti-immigration or racist to point out that the most vocal and most prevalent group of both legal and illegal immigrants currently coming to this country has an agenda other than the one they will publicly admit to or that said hidden agenda is likely as racist and hungry for power as any white or black movement in the past.
In the past, yes, Irish/Scots/English were probably the greediest/grabbiest/most selfish AND THE MOST PREVALENT group of immigrants. BUT their hegemony is fading now as it should. BUT that doesn't mean we should allow another, this time brown, hegemony to replace it.
Instead of allowing Latinos to swamp the system, we should have a balanced/blended mix of immigrants so that we may grow and evolve together as a nation. Otherwise, oppression, division, conflict and perhaps even destruction of the nation are inevitable.
We have worked too hard and too long to build up this country including struggling through the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement and other forms of white oppression just to replace one oppressor with another and have the country torn apart.
Everybody knows that older white men are greediest, grabbiest (great word there) and most selfish group. I resent like hell the Latinos trying to move in on our territory.
Should those of you out there who want to know when anti immigration sentiment turns racist, please refer to post @ 12:08.
Pack, or as the Kiowa might refer to the Sioux.
"you see that they are actually the greediest, grabbiest, most selfish group. For that reason, a majority of illegal Latinos should be deported and legal immigration by Latinos should be sharply reduced so that other groups may be given a chance.."
What an absolute and utter crock of shit, slick willie. The greediest, grabbiest most selfish group of immigrants would be the Scotch-Irish and English pioneers, if you want to go down that road .
I believe you are mistaken in the attraction of a minimum wage over any wage at all. Many immigrant/neighbors are fleeing chaos across the border, both narco related and the effects of NAFTA on small farms.
But your law and order approach to constraining illegal employers is spot on.
@Nick R. Follow the Money's point is that there is a lot more than meets the eye with the legal and illegal Latino immigration movement. It's a play for power. Latinos make up a large majority of both legal and illegal immigrants coming to this country and they are constantly pressing for even more. They are attempting and succeeding at essentially stacking the deck in their favor with overwhelming numbers. That's never a good thing and will inevitably lead to oppression by them against all others. That's just human nature.
The Latinos talk a good game about just wanting their fair share of opportunity, but if you look at their objective behavior, that they already make up a large majority of both legal and illegal immigrants and want more and more, you see that they are actually the greediest, grabbiest, most selfish group. For that reason, a majority of illegal Latinos should be deported and legal immigration by Latinos should be sharply reduced so that other groups may be given a chance.
I believe cousin Cracko was attempting to translate from Dr Smirnoff's original Russian, his polluted points probably posited that the influx of immigration was encouraged to provide cheap uncomplaining labor for barf's uber-conservatives and another chance for liberals to provide for a fresh minority group and by extension their own guilt. And of course nannies all around.
Finally his reference to a native "upper lower class" (again barf's usage) may pertain to an inevitable further decline in status since the debate over immigration does not involve them or their needs.
By Flyer Staff
download this issue
click here to see more »