Very interesting information! Thanks!

G’night

I have no problem with affirmative action for someone who has been discriminated against, I do have a problem with slavery reparations. I held no slaves and I owe no one slave reprations. Whom do you suppose should pay that particular piper? And what land do I think ought to be given back? If you are talking about Israel that is pretty much a stretch. “Palistine” was part of the Ottoman Empire which was defeated in WWI (The Ottoman Turks were part of the enemy dude, they lost, their holdings were conficscated by the winners… that is the way the real world works fellow.

On second thought, I really don’t want any of what you may be smoking, I think it probably addles the brain.

GM Roper, you for reparations?

“I did horribly in college semantics (i think the professor was a robot, tho),”

I think we must have been in the same class.

As to cheap labor, its only Mexicans this go round. Before, it had been Chinese, it has been Irish, and it has been Italians as well as slaves.

Current law doesn’t make sense to me either, there has to be a better way, but blanket amnesty when so many HAVE played by the rules doesn’t seem fair either. I know a few former Mexican citizens who saved, scrimped and played by the rules to get here (I live less than ten miles from the border with Mexico) and they are pissed as hell about the illegals. I also know a few legal immegrants that aren’t pissed, but would like to see some controls.

Despite throwing around terms I learned in high school speech and debate, I don’t really know logic, I did horribly in college semantics (i think the professor was a robot, tho), so anyway if your above summary really is the logical extension of the arguments I’ve been making, then you’ve got me.

However, it seems like a turning of the tables and “running with” of a simple, limited point I was trying to make. My argument was that your proposed reaction toward the present situation in the US would have had disastrous consequences if applied to the past situation in Israel. My intention wasn’t trying to point out historical precedent, but rather to show inconsistency in your argument.

Your “historical precedent” interpretation could very well be the logical equivalent/conclusion of my intended argument. I honestly don’t know.

Yet your further extension that my argumentation would somehow justify “rape of the sabine women?” is facile. I, too, could easily go off about how the Iquisition was the “Law” and because of your advocacy of the immigration “law” that you’re therefore pro-Inquisition. That’s ridiculous.

But I do appreciate your careful explanation of the complexity of the British mandate, it’s flaws. I feel that adds value to the discussion. So does Marc’s discussion of the complexity of immigration law here and now. Why IS it the “law”? What strange forces of bureaucracy or prejudice are at work so that the n. American economy would lose out on so much cheap labor? It’s very strange…

“I don’t say “yes”. All I say is that the law of the land was such at the time, and the Jews broke it in order to save their lives.”

Actually, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire the British mandate was for the purpose of “establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people.” (palestinefacts.org), the Brits did a lot of fancy land trading and blocking of jews but not of arabs and then, following immediately after Germany’s surrender and the liberation of the concentration camps, many slavic and european jews decided to take the new UN’s offer up. However, Brit control was still essentially anti-semitic and tried to block much of the immigration. I won’t say illegal, because it was still an “occupying powers” mandate and not local laws. I again iterate my assertion that every country has a right to defend it’s own borders. Be that as it may, the period of time from roughly December 1945 through the recognition of Israel in 1948 was the highest period of inflow, and the only law broken, was that of the Brits who were probably not governing according to their mandate anyway. This site has a pretty good history, also note there that much of what should have been part of israel (gaza, the negev, the west bank, the golan heights, were given away by the brits or refused for admission of jews.

I’ll submit that Latin American poverty is really bad, people risking their lives and dying in order to escape it is a testament to that (although you can find plenty other testaments to the misery of poverty if you like, perhaps you’ve experienced poverty?).

Well, I’ve never been third world country poor, but I have been by american standards, of the two, notpoor is better. I lived in Panama during some college years and have seen upclose and personal the poverty there. I do not blame the Mexicans or anyone for trying to escape abject poverty, in their shoes I would do the same, but I also wouldn’t ask for special favors, “constitutional rights” in a country that I’m not a citizen of, or anything else, I’d try to sneak in (repeatedly if necessary and I were poor enough) and get a job and then get the hell out. Having said that, before I tried that I would have already tried to better myself in my country of origin. I started out here without a college ed (I put myself through college cause I didn’t like making minimum wage - Uncle Sam via the GI Bill paid for my grad degree). I would like to think I would be pretty successful in overcoming barriers there as well. Maybe not, I can’t play fantasy life as well as some.

What makes the past different from the present? Why could your ancestors possibly come here illegally, (and, it seems, you’re fine with that notion because it was in the past) but today a whole new set of rules apply?

I didn’t say it was OK, I said that there may have been some illegal immigrants among my ancestors. I don’t know, but I had nothing to do with that, I can only be responsible for my actions here in the present. What my great grandfather or someone else did may be a statement of fact, but not something I had any control over.

What makes the past different from the present? Why could your ancestors possibly come here illegally, (and, it seems, you’re fine with that notion because it was in the past) but today a whole new set of rules apply?

True enough, but including in the argument that because it was done in the past makes it ok now is senseless. That seems to me to be the point here, it was illegal immigration by many into the US, illegal immigration into Israel, and that makes it OK now for illegal immigration into the United States. Stating that something happened in the past does not imply that it is acceptable in the present. For example, what would you say would be the punishment of soldiers today if they did the same as the Romans did in in the perhaps mythical “rape of the sabine women?” Would the fact that historically, conquering armies killed the aged men, enslaved the young and raped the women make it OK now? I know you aren’t saying that, but I’m trying to show why I’m not overly concerned with historical precident except to the extent it can teach me what not to do now.

Dude, by “anti-definition” I was referring to your two-pronged explanation of what “[Racism] doesn’t mean:”

Sorry if I was being too fancy by using the word “anti-definition”, but do you understand what I was referring to?

I DON’T disagree with your Merriam Webster definition of what racism is at all, in fact it’s a total non-issue, I obviously accept that definition, and like I already said it’s not something being debated. I responded to your improvised “it is not” definition, and I myself improvised a name for that, an “anti-definition”. Again, are we clear? Let me know and if not I’ll try again.

In the meantime, moving right along:

>>>accuse them of stupidity and mean motives.

Woody demonstrated “stupidity,” that’s all I had to work with, I didn’t start out accusing him of that. Rather, HE failed to respond intelligently and even admitted to not even reading one of my comments, that’s dumb afaik, so he’s sortuva lost cause.

Sure I did suggest mean motives as a possibility, kinda, although as I’ve tried to clarify, I think his type of rhetoric is an enabler of mean motives, whether or not he personally possesses them.

But if you care to take a short look back, the guy who designed Woody’s site is a lot more rational and civil and I haven’t called him “stupid” or working on “mean motives”. I disagree with his views, but I treated him with due respect (as he did me) and our discussion up to now has been civil.

Woody, on the other hand, started off the discussion with a inflammatory, jingoist terminology, the “Mexican invasion”. Subsequent discourse and inability to respond to direct questions shows that he doesn’t have any real interest in behaving civilly or listening to the other side of the debate. You just won’t find that on his list of “Woody’s reasons why he goes online”, would you?

So any impression you have that I’m totally intolerant just because someone doesn’t agree with me is wrongheaded. I’ve demonstrated that it’s the WAY people discuss things that determines how they’ll be treated by me, or anybody else. Make sense?

No, he woudn’t, and hasn’t, and never will.

The only thing I have noticed about Woody is that he is a right-winger and a Republican partisan. That puts him in the company of about 40 to 60 per cent of the American population, depending upon how you figure such things, but I do realize that many Americans self-segregate, fear the “Other,” assume that those “Others” operate in bad faith and feel free to accuse them of stupidity and mean motives.

As for your description of my correct definition of racism as an “anti-definition,” I don’t even know where to begin, except to surmise that you don’t believe that words have meanings, and that you consider yourself both more intelligent and authoritative than numerous committees of lexicographers.

On the current immigration debate I admit to being diffident. I can’t find fault with people who demand that American laws be enforced or changed any more than I can with people who express sympathy and solidarity with the economic refugees who stream over our borders. I tend to think that a humane solution will be proposed and accepted sometime in the future.

STS

Sex, Race and Holy War
excerpted from the book
American Holocaust
by David Stannard
Oxford University Press, 1992

First of all, I don’t think the definition of racism is in dispute. What I was initially reacting to was what appeared to be an assumption on your part that non-whites could not be racist. That to me seems totally absurd.

Your two “anti-definitions”:

>>>1. a belief in ideas or policies disapproved of by Chileno

Listen, if you go back and look at what I said, I admitted right off the bat that my thoughts were the result of a re-thinking of personal assumptions, and that Woody was helping me develop a different impression.

Please note that I never called Woody racist. The unanalyzed immigration debate, however, often does fall into casual jingoism, although I think xenophobia is the word I was looking for, and as Woody hardly epitomizes thoughtfulness, then his argumentation represented that to me. Casual, not thought out, and representative of a trend that allows people to disguise their xenophobia/racism through political rhetoric promulgated by shock jocks, etc.

Furthermore, over various comments I pointed out that he was illogically preferring one group of immigrants over another, and that those could either be black Ethiopian Jews or White European Jews immigrated to Israel. Yes, I brought up the subject of race as a possibility, because I think it’s a very, very important possibility. But I also pointed out that it could just be his poor logic.

>>>2. a belief in ideas or policies arguably contrary to the interests of specific racial or ethnic groups.

Like I say above, it’s precisely this anti-definition of yours that allows xenophobes to mask their prejudice in political terms. I’ll remind you again of the anecdote I heard where a Mexican produce worker at a LA Whole Foods was called “illegal” based on his physical appearance. I don’t think Woody has gone that far in this forum, but my point to begin with is that his stance typifies that which many real xenophobes do get behind, and so I would hope he were more self-aware before spouting out rhetoric.

That’s why I appealed to his sense of “rationality” so that he can logically analyze his position, and come up with a strong argument that’s completely free of race.

>>>The question is did the Brits have a moral or legal right to keep a jewish people out of a jewish land? I say no, you say yes. OK, disagreement there.

I don’t say “yes”. All I say is that the law of the land was such at the time, and the Jews broke it in order to save their lives (I’m definitely not against them saving their lives!).

As you point out, the British mandate was a pretty sketchy affair, etc. My point has never been to justify today’s policy by past historical examples, but rather quite the opposite:

To call you and Woody out on your “because it’s the law” logic.

You obviously do a better job than Woody, by beginning to point out the difference between today’s law here and yesterday’s law there, and hence begins a more intelligent, nuanced discussion. I appreciate that.

Still, I disagree with the basic two arguments you make, and hope you could shed more light on them.

1. >>> Mexicans who come here illegally are NOT being subjected to a pogrom or holocaust as were the Jews in Europe.

OK, you’re right. Holocaust is worse than poverty. Still, I think that way of thinking sets a dangerous precedent. Does a massive group of immigrants’ plight have to measure up to the Holocaust before we acknowledge that their situation is dire? I’ll submit that Latin American poverty is really bad, people risking their lives and dying in order to escape it is a testament to that (although you can find plenty other testaments to the misery of poverty if you like, perhaps you’ve experienced poverty?).

2.>>>That was then, this is now. My ancestors came to the US in a variety of ways, maybe even some of them illegally.

What makes the past different from the present? Why could your ancestors possibly come here illegally, (and, it seems, you’re fine with that notion because it was in the past) but today a whole new set of rules apply?

>>>The stale argument of what happened in the past being justification or non-justification now is silly. Lets keep the discussion on the present.

Just a thought: I think the point of looking back into history is learning from examples, and although cliche: unless you study the past, history will repeat itself. It just seems like a no-brainer that you would want to look at how people who think like you acted in the past. Hindsight in some ways IS 20/20, let that vision be a guide.

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

It doesn’t mean:
1. a belief in ideas or policies disapproved of by Chileano
2. a belief in ideas or policies arguably contrary to the interests of specific racial or ethnic groups.

Too, there were other considerations here. For example, Mexicans who come here illegally are NOT being subjected to a pogrom or holocaust as were the Jews in Europe.

That being said, so what? That was then, this is now. My ancestors came to the US in a variety of ways, maybe even some of them illegally. Again, that was then, this is now. Neither you nor I was there to influence the return of the Jews or how our ancestors would come to any given country. Here, now we have a say. By the way, using the same type of “logic” I’m sure you are against “trial by combat” as a way to settle disputes, but it was legal in the past, should that make it legal now?

The stale argument of what happened in the past being justification or non-justification now is silly. Lets keep the discussion on the present.