Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is another example of a white populist sentiment:
These references to "East Los Angeles or a Walmart in CA" and the comparison to a "third world country" are constituents of a lamentation about white flight, and hints that regions or municipalities populated by a significant number of indio people are doomed to self-destruction. Consider the similar comments from Stormfront:
What do Stormfront comments have anything to do with what I said?
Is it my fault that East LA is almost worse then some 3rd world counties and is 97% hispanic? No. According to city-data 48.2% of East LA is foreign born and that is not counting thousands of illegals who were not on the census. Now when you have a city that is 126k people and more then half were born in a third world country (city-data) then one must be smart enough to know that they are not going to assimilate and that they're just going to re create their own little third wolrd community the US (i.e. East LA)
Go to any Walmart in CA and you'll hear every single other language under the sun besides English and yes that makes me feel like I'm in a third world country being in there. Is English a white-only thing? I know plenty of blacks, asians and hispanics that can speak perfect English and choose to do so over their native language... because they came here to become Americans...
[quote=mkfarnam;17597005]I remember when prop 187 was initiate. There was a long battle over it before it was considered unconstitutional.
And as mentioned earlier by Jayarcy:
I also remember when other states wouldn't help Ca, because they didn't want to get involved with illegal immigration.
It didn't take long for them to wake up and see that they were already involved.
I was a community leader and vise chairperson of our town hall meetings at the time.
After prop 187 was over turned, illegals flocked to Ca. And it seemed from there, most of the seat for the County Board of Supervisors, in several counties (including the Inland Empire) started being filled by pro-illegal Hispanics.
I don't recall 1 meeting with our(5th) district Supervisor (Josie Gonzles) where she didn't argue with us tooth and nail, mainly over population growth. She wanted it and that was it. She even said that she wanted more illegals(squatters) in the community. We filed a recall against her. But it didn't seem to work.
Now the community I lived in for 25 yr's is taken over by illegals.
It seemed like the over turning of prop187 caused a title wave through So Ca.[/quote]
Illegal aliens saw it as a green light from the government.
and let me guess, the NAACP speaks for all blacks?
i would have a problem with both those generalizations.
Well, as a black person who grew up knowing who the NAACP was and how important they were in our struggle, ... yeah, they pretty much speak for all of us. We may not all agree with the NAACP in what they do in our image (I know I don't), but when it comes to public image, the NAACP has forced itself into the position of speaking for all black people. Actually, the NAACP often speaks for people of all different shades of brown.
Come on Edible. You and I both know, being from minority communities, that a vast number of our people are on food stamps, WIC, etc. Stats and personal experience speak for itself. We have a disproportionately large amount of blacks and latinos in poverty compared to our numbers.
And in case you missed the note, I'm a Puerto Rican from Puerto Rico living in PA, not that it makes me any more or less qualified in my statements.
Unfortunately, those two organizations love to think that they speak for everyone they represent. Especially since the media takes what Rev. Jackson, and the NAACP take what they say as gospel of the black community.
My point was that that is a pretty bold way to say that, it came off as stereotypical and more of a insult than a contribution to the conversation. You disagree?
you have obviously never been to east LA... or a third world country if you think anywhere in LA resembles a third world country.
the last time i went to a walmart in Socal there were other languages spoken, but the predominant one was english. the cashiers and workers spoke nothing but english, some had accents, but they spoke english. also, in LA we have a lot of tourists. i ride the blue line everyday. i hear all sorts of languages, but mostly english. thats never a problem. why would i begrudge someone for speaking japanese or korean or spanish around me? furhter, i go get those asian foot massages in monterrey park pretty often. i dont speak mandarin or vietnamese, but we understand eachother enough to get a nice service transacted.
its not that big of an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marleymaple
What do Stormfront comments have anything to do with what I said?
Is it my fault that East LA is almost worse then some 3rd world counties and is 97% hispanic? No. According to city-data 48.2% of East LA is foreign born and that is not counting thousands of illegals who were not on the census. Now when you have a city that is 126k people and more then half were born in a third world country (city-data) then one must be smart enough to know that they are not going to assimilate and that they're just going to re create their own little third wolrd community the US (i.e. East LA)
Go to any Walmart in CA and you'll hear every single other language under the sun besides English and yes that makes me feel like I'm in a third world country being in there. Is English a white-only thing? I know plenty of blacks, asians and hispanics that can speak perfect English and choose to do so over their native language... because they came here to become Americans...
well they dont speak for me. UNCF, maybe- since they gave money a long time ago.
but when it comes to a larger image, i reject someone assuming that one entity(like the NCLR or NAACP) or that one person (like Jesse james or dolores huerta) speak for a whole group of people. the NAACP speaks for NAACP members and noone else.
historically i do understand how important it was to stand behind SCLC, the NAACP, the panthers, etc., but now we are so varied in philosophies and tactics that no one groups represents the whole. thats the way i see it. i appreciate the legacy these early groups left us, but now, only i can speak for myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoEdible
Well, as a black person who grew up knowing who the NAACP was and how important they were in our struggle, ... yeah, they pretty much speak for all of us. We may not all agree with the NAACP in what they do in our image (I know I don't), but when it comes to public image, the NAACP has forced itself into the position of speaking for all black people. Actually, the NAACP often speaks for people of all different shades of brown.
But why do you dwell on "white populists" or any other white radical group unless you have an agenda to smear all whites? They do not represent the majority of non-hispanic whites in this country. It is something that I have noticed about the illegal alien sympathizers.
As was mentioned, and ignored by you, the adjective "white" in the term "white populist" does not refer to the ethnic background of white populists. The term refers to an individual who advances an identity politics agenda based on the alleged interests of whites. While all white supremacists are white populists, a significant number of mainstream rightists are also white populists. The core belief of white populism is that the central "racist" issue today is not ongoing institutional racism against certain non-white ethnic groups, but "reverse racism" against whites through policies such as affirmative action programs, and mass media denigration through "political correctness." Consider an excerpt from this speech by Charlton Heston.
Fighting the Culture War in America - Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fighting_the_Culture_War_in_America - broken link)
Quote:
Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens. The message gets through; Heaven help the God fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle- class Protestant-or even worse, evangelical Christian, Midwestern or Southern- or even worse, rural, apparently straight-or even worse, admitted heterosexuals, gun-owing-or even worse, NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff-or even worse, male working stiff-because, not only don’t you count, you are a down-right obstacle to social progress. Your voice deserves a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly, mister, you need to wake up, wise up, and learn a little something from your new-America and until you do, would you mind shutting up?
[...]
The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of wise old dead white guys who invented our country! Now some flinch when I say that. Why! Its true-they were white guys! So were most of the guys that died in Lincoln's name opposing slavery in the 1860’s. So why should I be ashamed of white guys? Why is Hispanic Pride or Black Pride a good thing, while "White Pride" conjures shaven heads and white hoods?
The implication is that white Christian male U.S. citizens are the victims of discrimination, and that white Christian males are subject to unfair hostility, therefore becoming an oppressed group of sorts. The reason why "Hispanic Pride or Black Pride a good thing," and white pride not, should be fairly obvious. Hispanics (particularly Indians) and blacks have been discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics of their background, and have organized resistance to discrimination along the same lines, with affirmation of "pride" being a symbolic measure. While constituent ethnic groups of "whites" have been subjected to historic discrimination, whites qua whites have not, and there is thus no basis for "white pride." This phenomenon of "white pride" is an outgrowth of white supremacists' baseless perception that "whites" are subject to discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Another thing that illegal alien sympathizers do is to claim they aren't pro-illegal immigration but yet they want them to be rewarded with legalization/amnesty/citizenship for thumbing their noses at our immigration laws and anyone who objects to that is viewed as a racist.
This is an unsound argument. For similarly, the abolition of segregationist policies might be called a "reward" of the criminality of practitioners of civil disobedience. That has no bearing on the immorality of the initial laws being protested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
It is mostly Hispanics citizens who do that.
This is ethnic stereotyping, and is a white populist sentiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Oh, I see let's just make anyone who manages to sneak in here illegally, legal and that will solve the problem? Where does it end? How many millions or billions do you think we can accomodate?
This is a departure from legal fetishism, since it is now depicted as a matter of constraints, presumably constraints of resources. That could represent a far more fruitful line of inquiry for you to consider in your anti-immigration comments. The fact that an objection to immigration regardless of its legality would continue to exist also reveals that yours is indeed an "anti-immigration" perspective. It is actually the mainstream perspective among opponents of "illegal immigration.
Of course when an illegal alien is mentioned the immediate picture one would get in their mind is that of a Mexican. Well duh, the majority here illegally are Mexicans or other Latinos. That's not to say that we don't know there are other illegal aliens here.
A "picture...of a Mexican" is an interesting concept because Mexicans do not have a homogenous appearance, since they are a national group rather than a racial one. The Mesoamerican immigrants who constitute the majority of the Mexican and Central American immigrant population, however, do generally have a homogenous Indian appearance, and "Mexican-ness" is therefore associated with Native American phenotype. That is where the potential for racial discrimination enters the picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
My point was that it isn't only non-hispanic whites that object to legalization of illegal aliens. We have many blacks and even some Hispanics that do. But the fact remains that far too many Hispanics are advocates for amnesty/legalization of these illegal aliens because they are mostly ethnically like themselves.
"Hispanics" are an "ethnicity" in the eyes of non-Hispanic beholders, as "Anglos" become an ethnicity in Israel, though it would be regarded as folly to consider all persons with national origins in Anglophone countries members of a single ethnic group in the United States, for example. The issue, however, is that negative characteristics (foreign invasion and complicity in its occurrence) have been associated with a specific ethnic group, which means that ethnic-based discrimination becomes possible.
Objective. This study assesses the association between Anglo aversion to Latinos, physical proximity to Latinos, and contact with ethnic minorities, with expressed preferences for immigration policies.
Methods. Data were drawn from a telephone survey of San Diego County, California, residents (N=549 Anglos) using random-digit-dial procedures during 2005–2006 that was conducted by closely supervised professional interviewers. Descriptive reports, tau-b correlations, and multivariate logistic regressions were used for analysis.
Results. Aversion to Latinos, as indicated by an adaptation of the Bogardus social distance scale, was related to more restrictionist attitudes about legal and Mexican immigration. Associations increased when respondents were primed to consider Mexican immigration, although aversion to Latinos was not related to attitudes about amnesty for undocumented persons. Contrary to some previous findings, proximity to Latino populations increased opposition to legal immigration and amnesty. Reported minority contact had minimal impact but increased support for amnesty.
Conclusions. Attitudes about immigration may be motivated more by racial resentments than other considerations. Future research should identify racial factors that influence Anglo policy positions beyond the classic Anglo/African division that has dominated this research arena.
The study is flawed by inaccurate nomenclature, since "Latinos" are not a race, but the incorporation of the data regarding the stratified subordination of Indians within the "Latino" ethnic group and the typically Indian status of "Latino" immigrants suggests that the issue is one of "racial resentments" towards Indians perceived as foreign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
There is nothing inaccurate about calling someone a non-hispanic white. It simply means they are white racially but not Hispanic culturally.
Racial "whiteness" is not a genetically or anthropologically legitimate designation, but an artificial social construct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Some illegals are lazy. Some are welfare users. I don't think anyone has said that they all are. The fact is that they are an invading force. If you don't enter someone's house or country invited by the collective owners you are an invader.
Ergo, the New England colonists who established the United States based on encroachment against various Indian communities and nations of the Northeast were invaders, and the expansion ("Manifest Destiny") that was facilitated was based on the occurrence of theft. Since stolen property is not morally legitimately owned by thieves, its theft from them is not a morally problematic issue. That is the weakness of this particular assertion, and the reason that I have suggested that anti-immigration contributors focus on other lines of inquiry, such as the economic consequences of more authoritarian or libertarian immigration policies, respectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clsicmovies
I agree with most all of your quotes in your last post, thank you.
I am aware of that. That illustrates the significant appeal of white populism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clsicmovies
Your comment posted from East Los Angeles College is no surprise, know something about East L.A. College, my relative lives across the street. The group that does all the tribal pow wows have a classroom there allowed by the college, and this group distributes flyers "white's go back to Europe, you stole our land" and other very hateful speech towards whites/Europeans, and they march in illegal immigration parades with the signs.
This description seems to match the Mexica Movement, though I know them to advocate that white supremacists go back to Europe, which does not seem to be an unreasonable suggestion. I am unaware of any presence that they have at ELAC. Perhaps you instead thought of MEChA, which does indeed have an on-campus presence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clsicmovies
Thank goodness ELAC is now tearing down the swap meet, too many compaints it was 3rd world.
That must be connected to the fiendish yellow men you were mentioning earlier, since ELAC is in Monterey Park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
I would value your validation as much as any other off topic, 7/11 over the counter conversation. Thanks for your usual thread derailment. Your affliction for Kele has been interesting, no awkward, to say the least.
I surmised as much, White Eyes. It would be more convincing if pretIndians chose something less popular than "Cherokee" and "Apache." Spotting a pseudo-Apache is remarkably simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marleymaple
What do Stormfront comments have anything to do with what I said?
The white supremacists' comments are characterized by the same sentiments of white populism, specifically complaints about the encroachment of foreign cultures, extrapolation of that cultural encroacher status onto a specific ethnic group (that is incorrectly perceived as uniformly non-white), and generalizations about that ethnic group as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marleymaple
Is it my fault that East LA is almost worse then some 3rd world counties and is 97% hispanic? No. According to city-data 48.2% of East LA is foreign born and that is not counting thousands of illegals who were not on the census. Now when you have a city that is 126k people and more then half were born in a third world country (city-data) then one must be smart enough to know that they are not going to assimilate and that they're just going to re create their own little third wolrd community the US (i.e. East LA)
Go to any Walmart in CA and you'll hear every single other language under the sun besides English and yes that makes me feel like I'm in a third world country being in there. Is English a white-only thing? I know plenty of blacks, asians and hispanics that can speak perfect English and choose to do so over their native language... because they came here to become Americans...
The complaints about lack of assimilation were written in 1835 by Samuel Morse, regarding "Papist" immigrants from Catholic Europe:
"It is but to continue for a few years the sort of immigration that is now daily pouring in its thousands from Europe, and our institutions, for aught that I can see, are at the mercy of a body of foreigners, officered by foreigners, and held completely under the control of a foreign power. We may then have reason to say, that we are dupes of our own hospitality; we have sheltered in our well provided house a needy body of strangers, who, well filled with our cheer, are encouraged by the unaccustomed familiarity with which they are treated, first to upset the regulations of the household, and then to turn their host and his family out of doors."
The initial foundation of the U.S. was certainly based on the propensity of European immigrants "first to upset the regulations of the household, and then to turn their host and his family out of doors," but immigration from Austria and other European Catholic nations did not result in the establishment of theocratic Roman Catholicism in the U.S. There is no additional information provided by the modern generation of anti-immigrant populists, but echoes of the same prejudicial rhetoric of times past.
There are no anti-"immigrants" in this forum. We are all opposed to illegal immigration not legal immigration. Learn to know the difference and stop the lies!
As was mentioned, and ignored by you, the adjective "white" in the term "white populist" does not refer to the ethnic background of white populists. The term refers to an individual who advances an identity politics agenda based on the alleged interests of whites. While all white supremacists are white populists, a significant number of mainstream rightists are also white populists. The core belief of white populism is that the central "racist" issue today is not ongoing institutional racism against certain non-white ethnic groups, but "reverse racism" against whites through policies such as affirmative action programs, and mass media denigration through "political correctness." Consider an excerpt from this speech by Charlton Heston.
Fighting the Culture War in America - Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fighting_the_Culture_War_in_America - broken link)
The implication is that white Christian male U.S. citizens are the victims of discrimination, and that white Christian males are subject to unfair hostility, therefore becoming an oppressed group of sorts. The reason why "Hispanic Pride or Black Pride a good thing," and white pride not, should be fairly obvious. Hispanics (particularly Indians) and blacks have been discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics of their background, and have organized resistance to discrimination along the same lines, with affirmation of "pride" being a symbolic measure. While constituent ethnic groups of "whites" have been subjected to historic discrimination, whites qua whites have not, and there is thus no basis for "white pride." This phenomenon of "white pride" is an outgrowth of white supremacists' baseless perception that "whites" are subject to discrimination.
This is an unsound argument. For similarly, the abolition of segregationist policies might be called a "reward" of the criminality of practitioners of civil disobedience. That has no bearing on the immorality of the initial laws being protested.
This is ethnic stereotyping, and is a white populist sentiment.
This is a departure from legal fetishism, since it is now depicted as a matter of constraints, presumably constraints of resources. That could represent a far more fruitful line of inquiry for you to consider in your anti-immigration comments. The fact that an objection to immigration regardless of its legality would continue to exist also reveals that yours is indeed an "anti-immigration" perspective. It is actually the mainstream perspective among opponents of "illegal immigration.
A "picture...of a Mexican" is an interesting concept because Mexicans do not have a homogenous appearance, since they are a national group rather than a racial one. The Mesoamerican immigrants who constitute the majority of the Mexican and Central American immigrant population, however, do generally have a homogenous Indian appearance, and "Mexican-ness" is therefore associated with Native American phenotype. That is where the potential for racial discrimination enters the picture.
"Hispanics" are an "ethnicity" in the eyes of non-Hispanic beholders, as "Anglos" become an ethnicity in Israel, though it would be regarded as folly to consider all persons with national origins in Anglophone countries members of a single ethnic group in the United States, for example. The issue, however, is that negative characteristics (foreign invasion and complicity in its occurrence) have been associated with a specific ethnic group, which means that ethnic-based discrimination becomes possible.
The study is flawed by inaccurate nomenclature, since "Latinos" are not a race, but the incorporation of the data regarding the stratified subordination of Indians within the "Latino" ethnic group and the typically Indian status of "Latino" immigrants suggests that the issue is one of "racial resentments" towards Indians perceived as foreign.
Racial "whiteness" is not a genetically or anthropologically legitimate designation, but an artificial social construct.
Ergo, the New England colonists who established the United States based on encroachment against various Indian communities and nations of the Northeast were invaders, and the expansion ("Manifest Destiny") that was facilitated was based on the occurrence of theft. Since stolen property is not morally legitimately owned by thieves, its theft from them is not a morally problematic issue. That is the weakness of this particular assertion, and the reason that I have suggested that anti-immigration contributors focus on other lines of inquiry, such as the economic consequences of more authoritarian or libertarian immigration policies, respectively.
I am aware of that. That illustrates the significant appeal of white populism.
This description seems to match the Mexica Movement, though I know them to advocate that white supremacists go back to Europe, which does not seem to be an unreasonable suggestion. I am unaware of any presence that they have at ELAC. Perhaps you instead thought of MEChA, which does indeed have an on-campus presence.
That must be connected to the fiendish yellow men you were mentioning earlier, since ELAC is in Monterey Park.
I surmised as much, White Eyes. It would be more convincing if pretIndians chose something less popular than "Cherokee" and "Apache." Spotting a pseudo-Apache is remarkably simple.
The white supremacists' comments are characterized by the same sentiments of white populism, specifically complaints about the encroachment of foreign cultures, extrapolation of that cultural encroacher status onto a specific ethnic group (that is incorrectly perceived as uniformly non-white), and generalizations about that ethnic group as a result.
The complaints about lack of assimilation were written in 1835 by Samuel Morse, regarding "Papist" immigrants from Catholic Europe:
"It is but to continue for a few years the sort of immigration that is now daily pouring in its thousands from Europe, and our institutions, for aught that I can see, are at the mercy of a body of foreigners, officered by foreigners, and held completely under the control of a foreign power. We may then have reason to say, that we are dupes of our own hospitality; we have sheltered in our well provided house a needy body of strangers, who, well filled with our cheer, are encouraged by the unaccustomed familiarity with which they are treated, first to upset the regulations of the household, and then to turn their host and his family out of doors."
The initial foundation of the U.S. was certainly based on the propensity of European immigrants "first to upset the regulations of the household, and then to turn their host and his family out of doors," but immigration from Austria and other European Catholic nations did not result in the establishment of theocratic Roman Catholicism in the U.S. There is no additional information provided by the modern generation of anti-immigrant populists, but echoes of the same prejudicial rhetoric of times past.
You could star in a modified movie version of 'Inglourious Basterds'. Just plug in all things "Mexican", "Hispanic" or "Indian" instead.
Oh, and if you stalk my profile any more like you did Kele and some others I will report you. Dude, that behavior is seriously bizarre, weird and luckily, rather rare. If you live in the US you can seek counseling rather cheaply. If not, well good luck but do it anyway.
I work with someone who is of Chinese descent. Dang if she doesn't look Chinese. She can't speak a word of Chinese (Mandarin), but what do you know, even though she is an American she still claims Chinese. Weird isn't it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
