Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A theory ion immigration, invasion and natives.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A theory ion immigration, invasion and natives.

    In recent debates about the caravan of immigrants I have notice that the topic of native americans is constant... and this particular singularity hits odd with me... I don't understand the relationship between one thing or the other, or why people talk about them together.

    Then it just hit me. So this is my fresh new theory that I am submitting for debate. To see how accurate or wrong it is.

    The thing to consider is that the people in the caravan are, by the most part, of indigenous appearance. While the people in US trying to stop them are, by the most part, of european appearance.

    So in that contests we have situation where the descendants of the colonizers are telling the descendants of the native indians that they do not have the right to be here, and that they will be deported to the land they came from.

    I think at some level it clicks in the mind of this european descendants the irony even the hypocrisy of their claim.

    So a way to deal with this is by either rationalizing that they are native indians themselves, hence they have the right to defend... the second part, I guess is to claim that this central americans are not real native americans, somehow...

    And in the combination of the 2 claims then the descendants of the europeans can claim that they are protecting the right of living in their ancient native land, from this force of invading... europeans?

    In other words, my theory is that the alt-right have hit a level of insanity that is well into the territory of batshitcrazy.

  • #2
    From my experience, you're just plain wrong.

    Every single time I've talked about immigration I've had some rad-left nutjob come out and be like "well, we're all just Europeans and this place doesn't belong to us so we have no right to deny anyone for any reason" or they're like "we're all immigrants anyway" or they say "unless your a Native, you don't get a say" so throwing in the Native American blood straight from the get-go cuts down on that shit. It has nothing to do with appearance; just reducing pointless "rebuttals" that have no basis in logic or reality.

    It honestly doesn't matter about blood (despite my idle curiosity in my own). In the real world, this is the United States of America not the United States of Native Americans. This is our land, not Mexico's or anyone else's. And that's how we see them, as Mexicans (or whatever country) not "we're natives and they're Europeans".

    Also, no one that I know, or know of, is against immigration. It's illegal immigration that's the real problem. Even the most die hard right wing extremist doesn't want to end immigration, at most they want to filter out immigrants who provide no value to our nation. People like some 80 yo grandma who, as soon as she can, will go onto the public teat known as welfare and just be one more person being a drain. Of course, then those leftists will come on and be like, "what you really mean is you only want white people, so you're racist."

    Since left wingers refuse to see a difference between someone talking about immigration vs illegal immigration, they almost always conflate the two topics.

    So, in sum we have situation where US citizens are telling foreigners that they do not have the right to be here illegally; and that, if they do come illegally, they will be deported to the land they came from.

    When you read more into it than that, particularly when you don't address any state reasons for their opposition to the caravan, what you're doing is superimposing your mindset onto others. It's an ad hominem.

    You said "the people in the caravan are, by the most part, of indigenous appearance. While the people in US trying to stop them are, by the most part, of european appearance." You're superimposing your belief that it's about appearance here and is just short of calling anyone against this caravan a racist, despite any stated reasons for being against it. You then base the rest of your "theory" upon this superimposition; which is why you're completely wrong.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well the thing is that in the debates about the caravan, the topic of native americans is very heavy debated... so in my logic they must be connected, somehow. This is the theory I come with.

      How do you explain that in all the topics about the caravan, one way or another there is this native american topic?

      I am sure I didn't brought it up in any of them... Actually I think you brought it up on one of them... why?

      I can see the left making the claims... but the backward explanations the "right" is giving at least hint that they think there is some merit in the claim, to begin with. If it didn't matter, as you say... then why it is such prominent topic?

      I think at some level there is the understanding that it is hypocrisy... if we start from the historical frame that there was native igenius nations, and they where invaded by a real hostile force. Then claiming that 10k disorganized, untrained and unequip for any military operation are an invading force that represents a dander to conquer US... They are going to conquer us... with rocks? When the europeans conquer them with armies?

      Probably it is this language the right use, that trigger this historical hypocrisy... calling them invaders hit too close to them... Or how else you explain it?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by simpleman View Post
        Well the thing is that in the debates about the caravan, the topic of native americans is very heavy debated... so in my logic they must be connected, somehow. This is the theory I come with.

        How do you explain that in all the topics about the caravan, one way or another there is this native american topic?
        Originally posted by JamesNunya View Post
        throwing in the Native American blood straight from the get-go cuts down on that shit. It has nothing to do with appearance; just reducing pointless "rebuttals" that have no basis in logic or reality.
        Originally posted by simpleman View Post
        I am sure I didn't brought it up in any of them... Actually I think you brought it up on one of them... why?
        Originally posted by JamesNunya View Post
        PS. To the best of my knowledge, no one in my family is an immigrant because as far as I can tell, my family tree goes back before official census records. At least, direct lineage anyway. I've been idly doing genealogy for a few years now and have exhausted birth certificates, death certificates, SS numbers, and census records. I'm already into the 1820's, 2 generations from the start of the US, and have followed my family from Louisville, Ky down to the border and into Tennessee. But records are getting harder to find. I'm considering tax records to verify and maybe advance my research. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
        As you can see, I brought it up as an aside comment to ask for ideas about genealogy research.

        Originally posted by simpleman View Post
        I can see the left making the claims... but the backward explanations the "right" is giving at least hint that they think there is some merit in the claim, to begin with. If it didn't matter, as you say... then why it is such prominent topic?
        Because the whole "If you're not a Native American yourself, you don't get a say" that the left likes to pull is an old tactic of theirs. Bringing up Native American blood is basically a habit built out of necessity to expedite any discussion.

        Originally posted by simpleman View Post
        I think at some level there is the understanding that it is hypocrisy... if we start from the historical frame that there was native igenius nations, and they where invaded by a real hostile force. Then claiming that 10k disorganized, untrained and unequip for any military operation are an invading force that represents a dander to conquer US... They are going to conquer us... with rocks? When the europeans conquer them with armies?

        Probably it is this language the right use, that trigger this historical hypocrisy... calling them invaders hit too close to them... Or how else you explain it?
        1. Everyone knows US history and how we came to be here. We started small, some ships taking months to get here carrying a couple hundred people.
        2. Armed conflicts began in the early 1500s (earliest I can think of was in 1512) but didn't end until the 1920s. That's 400 years of fighting.
        3. Since we're currently discussing Latin American immigration, it wasn't illegal for them to come here "undocumented" until 1965 when the Hart-Celler Immigration Act was passed.
        4. Fast forward to today and you see we have entire towns and even some small cities that have such a huge Latin American population that Spanish isn't just the dominant language, it's spoken exclusively.
        5. This "invasion" has been going on since the creation of immigration laws. This caravan isn't a new phenomenon, it's just the current event.

        So, do you see a pattern forming? There's nothing hypocritical about noticing it and not wanting history to repeat itself. That's because those of us here, today, weren't the ones who did the "invading" 500 years ago. The settlers of yesteryear didn't see themselves as invaders anymore than this caravan does, but maybe less so. Also, just like these migrants, early settlers didn't come as a military force either. But there is at least one major difference between early settlers and these migrants; when the settlers came here they weren't breaking any laws in doing so. That's not true with these people; they are, and they know it.

        https://www.nola.com/news/2018/11/te...-migrants.html

        So, the settlers were English settlers, we're American citizens. Two different peoples. American citizens against illegal immigration, whether they recognize the pattern or not, isn't hypocrisy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JamesNunya View Post
          As you can see, I brought it up as an aside comment to ask for ideas about genealogy research.
          Yes, In my mind i understand there must be a link somewhere.

          Because the whole "If you're not a Native American yourself, you don't get a say" that the left likes to pull is an old tactic of theirs. Bringing up Native American blood is basically a habit built out of necessity to expedite any discussion.
          That is odd...

          1. Everyone knows US history and how we came to be here. We started small, some ships taking months to get here carrying a couple hundred people.
          2. Armed conflicts began in the early 1500s (earliest I can think of was in 1512) but didn't end until the 1920s. That's 400 years of fighting.
          3. Since we're currently discussing Latin American immigration, it wasn't illegal for them to come here "undocumented" until 1965 when the Hart-Celler Immigration Act was passed.
          4. Fast forward to today and you see we have entire towns and even some small cities that have such a huge Latin American population that Spanish isn't just the dominant language, it's spoken exclusively.
          5. This "invasion" has been going on since the creation of immigration laws. This caravan isn't a new phenomenon, it's just the current event.
          Ahhh... the proliferation of the language is a symptom of the invasion?... I see... LOL

          I wonder if this applies to spanish only, or you are open to the idea of me using this argument in contrast to the proliferation of English in the world?

          By the way, coming in hands of your argument that your ancestor migrated before the foundation of US (hence you are a native)... I also like you to consider that a lot of people in this lands speak spanish since before the foundation o US... As a mater of fact... some of them were Mexicans and then the border moved around and they found themselves in US.. that is correct, they didn't move into US, US move into them... And quite possible those towns you are talking about where founded before the foundation of US, or at least the incorporation of those town into US territories, and quite possible they speak Spanish since before US...

          Because just for the fact that an army took down a flag and put up another flag in the place (even if you say there was not army) does not mean that the language of the people in town now change magically to English. They were forced into English a lot more than you claim they where invaded into Spanish.

          What really gets me is all this towns founded by Spaniards and the so, and they still have the spaniard original names, that English speakers can never pronounce right.

          So, do you see a pattern forming?...
          Give me the names of the towns of this patterns forming claim and I tell you how that town started... and we see how many started on English and over time turned to Spanish... deal?

          So, the settlers were English settlers, we're American citizens. Two different peoples. American citizens against illegal immigration, whether they recognize the pattern or not, isn't hypocrisy.
          The reason why I talk about the descendants of them on the OP...

          But hey, they might be Hondurans today, 1 generation later they all will be americans... LOL

          Comment


          • #6
            Ahhh... the proliferation of the language is a symptom of the invasion?... I see... LOL
            Some would say so, yes.

            I wonder if this applies to spanish only, or you are open to the idea of me using this argument in contrast to the proliferation of English in the world?
            Go ahead. But unless there's a growing physical population to match it with then it would be pointless. The Latin-American population is the 2nd fastest growing population in the US (next to the Asian population) and most of that population growth is due to immigration. Which fits what I previously stated.

            By the way, coming in hands of your argument that your ancestor migrated before the foundation of US (hence you are a native).
            No, hence they were settlers; not immigrants.

            I also like you to consider that a lot of people in this lands speak spanish since before the foundation o US... As a mater of fact... some of them were Mexicans and then the border moved around and they found themselves in US.. that is correct, they didn't move into US, US move into them... And quite possible those towns you are talking about where founded before the foundation of US, or at least the incorporation of those town into US territories, and quite possible they speak Spanish since before US...
            I'm well aware such towns exist. No one has disputed it or claimed otherwise.

            even if you say there was not army
            For the love of god, man. I said the first settlers weren't armies. I never said the US didn't use armies for expansion or anything of the sort. If you're not going to actually read what I'm writing, then I won't continue this discussion.

            What really gets me is all this towns founded by Spaniards and the so, and they still have the spaniard original names, that English speakers can never pronounce right.
            How do you pronounce McAllen (a Gaelic name) in Spanish?

            Give me the names of the towns of this patterns forming claim and I tell you how that town started... and we see how many started on English and over time turned to Spanish... deal?
            So you want me to comprise a list out of the, literally, tens of thousands of border towns and cities for you? No. Completely unrealistic to expect of 1 person.

            The reason why I talk about the descendants of them on the OP.
            So you can justify lumping two different groups of peoples together, got it.

            But hey, they might be Hondurans today, 1 generation later they all will be americans
            Only in name. And that's the problem. It's the same one Europe is facing with their Muslim refugees.

            Comment

            Working...
            X