Savages Not Spics

[Agnapostate]

I thought I'd drill it home again that the dark-skinned immigrant population of Latin America is predominantly Amerindian, and not racially "Hispanic" or "Latino." I do this because some people have only crude jingoistic reasons for opposing immigration (our country!) and might change their tune if an understanding of immigrants as dispossessed Indians were to take hold. I understand that these biased perceptions have no real bearing on actual arguments about immigration, but I think they certainly affect mindsets nonetheless. :salute:

[chloe]

I thought I'd drill it home again that the dark-skinned immigrant population of Latin America is predominantly Amerindian, and not racially "Hispanic" or "Latino." I do this because some people have only crude jingoistic reasons for opposing immigration (our country!) and might change their tune if an understanding of immigrants as dispossessed Indians were to take hold. I understand that these biased perceptions have no real bearing on actual arguments about immigration, but I think they certainly affect mindsets nonetheless. :salute:

I probably agree if you are saying racism sucks.

[chloe]

Oh yeah is your Grandpa still alive, I had a dream about him.....I know I'm a creeper right? LOL:cool:

[Trigg]

I thought I'd drill it home again that the dark-skinned immigrant population of Latin America is predominantly Amerindian, and not racially "Hispanic" or "Latino." I do this because some people have only crude jingoistic reasons for opposing immigration (our country!) and might change their tune if an understanding of immigrants as dispossessed Indians were to take hold. I understand that these biased perceptions have no real bearing on actual arguments about immigration, but I think they certainly affect mindsets nonetheless. :salute:

NO ONE CARES WHAT COLOR THEY ARE OR WHAT GROUP THEY BELONG TO!!!!!


Why are you incapable of understanding a simple truth. If a person from another county sneaks into this country without permission they are ILLEGAL. Why would the fact that they are indian change anyones mind about their immigration status?????????????????????????????????


You seem to be under the impression that everyone is against illegals because most are non-white. You could not be more wrong.

[chloe]

NO ONE CARES WHAT COLOR THEY ARE OR WHAT GROUP THEY BELONG TO!!!!!


Why are you incapable of understanding a simple truth. If a person from another county sneaks into this country without permission they are ILLEGAL. Why would the fact that they are indian change anyones mind about their immigration status?????????????????????????????????


You seem to be under the impression that everyone is against illegals because most are non-white. You could not be more wrong.

oh is that what he was saying? thanks translator, he must think that Indians are the only legal residents to the country. But I thought I read they came from russia or something like that. So everyone at some point in time found the americas, nobody is native.

[Trigg]

oh is that what he was saying? thanks translator, he must think that Indians are the only legal residents to the country. But I thought I read they came from russia or something like that. So everyone at some point in time found the americas, nobody is native.

Yep he's trying to say that since they're indians they should be allowed to travel where ever they want.

This of course completely ignores that fact that even before Europeans the Indians in central and south America had borders and cities that were clearly defined.

http://www.lost-civilizations.net/mayan-history.html


Centralized governments, headed by a king, ruled territories with clearly defined boundaries. These borders changed as the various states lost and gained control over territory.

It makes no difference that whites made the current US boundaries or that Indians made the boundaries of the past. They are there and must be respected.

He wants to think that whites are racist and only against illegals because they're predominantly indian. That's complete BS if Canadians started coming in illegally and using our resources people would be against them also. The border patrol arrests many OTM (other than Mexicans) every year.

[chloe]

Yep he's trying to say that since they're indians they should be allowed to travel where ever they want.

This of course completely ignores that fact that even before Europeans the Indians in central and south America had borders and cities that were clearly defined.

http://www.lost-civilizations.net/mayan-history.html



It makes no difference that whites made the current US boundaries or that Indians made the boundaries of the past. They are there and must be respected.

He wants to think that whites are racist and only against illegals because they're predominantly indian. That's complete BS if Canadians started coming in illegally and using our resources people would be against them also. The border patrol arrests many OTM (other than Mexicans) every year.

well depending on my mood I'm against everyone.....including myself...(it's my inner nihilist) Thank God Native Indians Have the Great Spirit and aren't atheists....thats what I'm saying.....I wish Agnapostate liked to joke around more....:laugh2:

[namvet]

I thought I'd drill it home again that the dark-skinned immigrant population of Latin America is predominantly Amerindian, and not racially "Hispanic" or "Latino." I do this because some people have only crude jingoistic reasons for opposing immigration (our country!) and might change their tune if an understanding of immigrants as dispossessed Indians were to take hold. I understand that these biased perceptions have no real bearing on actual arguments about immigration, but I think they certainly affect mindsets nonetheless. :salute:

do us a favor. drill for oil

[cat slave]

Borders used to mean something. They protected boundaries of countries,
were a means to have immigrants who contribute to our country instead of
leaching like a thief, and they helped control the influx of diseases that we,
the legal and rightful inhabitants, have little immunity to.

What part of "legal" is so hard to grasp?

If someone wants to come to America, follow the rules, work, learn our
language, be loyal to the country you claim to embrace and dont fly your
old flags over ours! Do it right and we will help you. Keep up this other
garbage and America will turn into what everyone is trying to flee. Then
what?

[Gaffer]

Agnaprostate is as racist as they come. He just likes to hide behind Mickey Mouse words. His typing reminds me of ward churchill, who is a despicable man.

[HogTrash]

I thought I'd drill it home again that the dark-skinned immigrant population of Latin America is predominantly Amerindian, and not racially "Hispanic" or "Latino." I do this because some people have only crude jingoistic reasons for opposing immigration (our country!) and might change their tune if an understanding of immigrants as dispossessed Indians were to take hold. I understand that these biased perceptions have no real bearing on actual arguments about immigration, but I think they certainly affect mindsets nonetheless. :salute:Are you aware that the thicker one's scull is the less volume is available for grey matter storage?

I am sure you have been told countless times that Americans are not opposed to immigration, only illegal immigration.

Why are you having so much trouble comprehending this?...Are you a victim of the scull displacement condition mentioned above?

[MtnBiker]

BTW the mindset of precieved terrorist could be all wrong. Rather than thinking of them as Islamict Jihadist determined to bringing death to infidel westerners, we should think of them as population control specialists.

That might help our mindset and make things better.

[HogTrash]

BTW the mindset of precieved terrorist could be all wrong. Rather than thinking of them as Islamict Jihadist determined to bringing death to infidel westerners, we should think of them as population control specialists.

That might help our mindset and make things better."War is peace...Freedom is slavery...Ignorance is Strength"

- George Orwell, "1984"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Nineteen Eighty-Four (also 1984), by George Orwell, published in 1949, is a dystopian novel about the totalitarian regime of the Party, an oligarchical collectivist society where life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, public mind control, and the voiding of citizens' rights. In the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue), protagonist Winston Smith is a civil servant responsible for perpetuating the Party's propaganda by revising historical records to render the Party omniscient and always correct, yet his meagre existence disillusions him into rebellion against Big Brother, which leads to his arrest, torture, and conversion.

As literary science fiction, 1984 is a classic novel of the social science fiction sub-genre, thus, since its publication in 1949, the terms and concepts of Big Brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, et cetera, became contemporary vernacular, including the adjective Orwellian, denoting George Orwell's writings and totalitarianism as exposited in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm (1945).

[Agnapostate]

NO ONE CARES WHAT COLOR THEY ARE OR WHAT GROUP THEY BELONG TO!!!!!

Why are you incapable of understanding a simple truth. If a person from another county sneaks into this country without permission they are ILLEGAL. Why would the fact that they are indian change anyones mind about their immigration status?????????????????????????????????

You seem to be under the impression that everyone is against illegals because most are non-white. You could not be more wrong.

You are mistaken. Firstly, I've already spoken of my disdain for your legal fetishism. Since there is at times a sharp divergence between legal and ethical standards (i.e. slavery was legal but unethical, slave liberation was illegal but ethical, etc.), merely chanting about illegality over and over again convinces me of nothing unless you can provide actual arguments in favor of your viewpoint.

Secondly, what I'm actually concerned about is a lack of understanding of the fact that most illegal immigrants are Amerindians on the part of the U.S. public, and a mistaken impression that most are "Hispanic" or "Latino" despite the European origins of those classifications. The reason for this is that immigration debates are often characterized by the sort of emotional venting that you've exhibited here rather than precise or rational analysis. A perception that illegal immigrants are "Hispanic" foreigners rather than Indians native to America will thus inflame this crude nationalism/jingoism that I see so often, whereas an understanding that they are Indians with a relation to groups understood as such (the Cherokee, the Navajo, the Sioux, etc.), that undergo racial discrimination in Mexico and elsewhere (there's a false belief that Mexicans are a homogenous race/ethnic group), will create an understanding that they have been subjected to unfair dispossession and discrimination and should hardly endure more.

To clarify further, I'm supportive of cognitive linguist George Lakoff's understanding of the rightist mindset with the "Nation as Family" metaphor. As to illegal immigration specifically, he remarks:


Within Strict Father morality, illegal immigrants are seen as lawbreakers ("illegals") who should be punished...From the perspective of the Nation as Family metaphor, illegal immigrants are not citizens, hence they are not children in our family. To be expected to provide food, housing, and health care for illegal immigrants is like being expected to feed, house, and care for other children in the neighborhood who are coming into our house without permission. They weren't invited, they have no business being here, and we have no responsibility to take care of them.

This mentality will be prevalent among those with socially rightist mindsets. However, it is challenged somewhat with an understanding of illegal immigrants as Amerindians whose established civilization was violently disrupted and largely wiped out by European settlement. Now, there will certainly be rightist resistance to this idea, particularly among the hard-liners rather than the moderates. For example, some rightists (such as you) will attempt to draw arbitrary divisions between the American Indians of the U.S. and the American Indians of Mexico and Latin America despite the fact that cultural divisions between their societies were not based on European-established national divisions. This is done to reduce the perception that illegal immigrants are merely natives returning to stolen territory. The problem with that lies in the aforementioned irrelevance of national divisions to Amerindian cultural divisions, and the related fact that U.S. Amerindians were not a homogenous society with united control over what is now the U.S. as much as a culturally divided group (just as Europeans were), with similarly divided control of different regions. So while people of Mixtec descent in the Mexican state of Oaxaca have little claim to any U.S. territory, neither do people of Cherokee descent in Oklahoma have much claim to Iroquois territory in the U.S. Northeast.


oh is that what he was saying? thanks translator, he must think that Indians are the only legal residents to the country. But I thought I read they came from russia or something like that. So everyone at some point in time found the americas, nobody is native.

Nobody is "native" to any continent except Africa, since the origins of humanity are found there. However, even if I was claiming what is falsely said I am (I'm not), I would refer to Amerindian settlement patterns rather than first origins. Widespread civilization was established here, regardless of where our first origins lie.


Yep he's trying to say that since they're indians they should be allowed to travel where ever they want.

That, along with your other assertions here, is untrue.


This of course completely ignores that fact that even before Europeans the Indians in central and south America had borders and cities that were clearly defined.

Again, there's the inaccurate categorization on your part. Mexico is in North America, as is Central America. What you don't realize, of course, is that there was heterogeneity between various Amerindian societies but ultimately a common source and a common race, to a greater extent than Europeans, in fact.


[T]hey helped control the influx of diseases that we, the legal and rightful inhabitants, have little immunity to.

Not really. :cool:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/FlorentineCodex_BK12_F54_smallpox.jpg


Agnaprostate is as racist as they come. He just likes to hide behind Mickey Mouse words. His typing reminds me of ward churchill, who is a despicable man.

Not really, Guffer. He's a phony Indian, isn't he? I'm not.


Are you aware that the thicker one's scull is

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/irony.jpg

[HogTrash]

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/irony.jpgDamn you Aggy!...I am so offended.

How could you post such an insult?

The shame!....The shame! :blowup:

[cat slave]

Gee, wonder how it would feel to be as brilliant and all knowing as Aggie?
His countenance is shining through my monitor.....oh, no, that is his racist
posting....Im offended too!!!

Shame on Aggie!

[SassyLady]

You are mistaken. Firstly, I've already spoken of my disdain for your legal fetishism. And this is supposed to offend me.......I'm kinda proud of it.


Since there is at times a sharp divergence between legal and ethical standards (i.e. slavery was legal but unethical, slave liberation was illegal but ethical, etc.), merely chanting about illegality over and over again convinces me of nothing unless you can provide actual arguments in favor of your viewpoint. How about this argument - if they wanted it bad enough then they should have stayed and fought for the land. They didn't, we did....end of story and argument.


Secondly, what I'm actually concerned about is a lack of understanding of the fact that most illegal immigrants are Amerindians on the part of the U.S. public, and a mistaken impression that most are "Hispanic" or "Latino" despite the European origins of those classifications.

And you are mistaken that anybody cares about the mistaken impression of illegal immigrants. What difference does it make whether we think of them as "Hispanic", "Latino" or "Amerindians"? They are just "people" who want something "given" to them.


The reason for this is that immigration debates are often characterized by the sort of emotional venting that you've exhibited here rather than precise or rational analysis. A perception that illegal immigrants are "Hispanic" foreigners rather than Indians native to America will thus inflame this crude nationalism/jingoism that I see so often, whereas an understanding that they are Indians with a relation to groups understood as such (the Cherokee, the Navajo, the Sioux, etc.), that undergo racial discrimination in Mexico and elsewhere (there's a false belief that Mexicans are a homogenous race/ethnic group), will create an understanding that they have been subjected to unfair dispossession and discrimination and should hardly endure more.

And why should I care Aggie? What do you want from us? "Oh you poor babies, here, let me sign over my land to you because your ancestors didn't have the fortitude to stand up and fight for their land. Sorry Aggie - only the strong survive. I don't mind being labeled jingoistic. In fact, I think it is a great survival tool.

Also, it doesn't matter who your ancestors were, where they live, or how oppressed they've been...........if you do not have a piece of paper that says you are an American citizen, or that you have the "legal" right to be here, then you are definitely an "illegal".....regardless of race, color, ancestory, displacement, AmeriIndian, and so on and so on.

Quit living in the past and get in the present.....you can argue until pigs fly, but the land between the Candian border and the Mexican border belongs to the people in power now.............not to the descendants of those who wandered through here centuries ago and decided to leave or were forced out. If they wanted to keep their land bad enough they would still be here.

[Agnapostate]

And this is supposed to offend me.......I'm kinda proud of it.

It's your fault rather than my own if you lack the ability to make sound ethical judgments and prefer blind reliance on the law instead. That's a sign of a weak and incapable mind, in my own opinion, and it was always those able to realize that there is a divergence between legal and ethical standards that were able to agitate for reform.


How about this argument - if they wanted it bad enough then they should have stayed and fought for the land. They didn't, we did....end of story and argument.

What is this supposed to be? You're one of the poorest debaters I've ever encountered.


And you are mistaken that anybody cares about the mistaken impression of illegal immigrants. What difference does it make whether we think of them as "Hispanic", "Latino" or "Amerindians"? They are just "people" who want something "given" to them.

See? You're falling into the stereotype cast by George Lakoff almost deliberately. :laugh:

If you'd read what I'd written a bit more carefully, however, you'd understand the basis behind the social perceptions that need to be changed. That you're too bullheaded to change is irrelevant; there are many other people that aren't, and that can be biased in a different direction as long as debate on this topic is guided by crude perceptions rather than rigorous analysis.


And why should I care Aggie? What do you want from us? "Oh you poor babies, here, let me sign over my land to you because your ancestors didn't have the fortitude to stand up and fight for their land. Sorry Aggie - only the strong survive. I don't mind being labeled jingoistic. In fact, I think it is a great survival tool.

Unfortunately, that hasn't been the best recipe for survival in the past. See, as put by James Loewell:


On his final voyage COlumbus shipwrecked on Jamaica, and the Arawaks there kept him and his crew of more than a hundred alive for a whole year until Spaniards from Haiti rescued them.

So it has continued. William Erasmus, a Canadian Indian, pointed out, "Explorers you call great men were helpless. They were like lost children, and it was our people who took care of them." Native Americans cured Cartier's men of scurvy near Montreal in 1535. They repaired Francis Drake's Golden Hind in California so he could complete his round-the-world voyage in 1579. Lewis and Clark's expedition to the Pacific Northwest was made possible by tribe after tribe of American Indians, with help from two Shoshone guides, Sacagawea and Toby, who served as interpreters. When Admiral Peary discovered the North Pole, the first person there was probably neither the European American Peary nor the African American Matthew Henson, his assistant, but their four Inuit guides, men and women on whom the entire expedition relied.

Try again, lad!


Also, it doesn't matter who your ancestors were, where they live, or how oppressed they've been...........if you do not have a piece of paper that says you are an American citizen, or that you have the "legal" right to be here, then you are definitely an "illegal".....regardless of race, color, ancestory, displacement, AmeriIndian, and so on and so on.

Yeah, I don't care about legality/illegality. If you don't like illegal things, legalize them. Oh...wait! There's obviously another justification behind criminalization that you refer to. That's what you should be trotting out instead of chanting about illegality.


Quit living in the past and get in the present.....you can argue until pigs fly, but the land between the Candian border and the Mexican border belongs to the people in power now.............not to the descendants of those who wandered through here centuries ago and decided to leave or were forced out. If they wanted to keep their land bad enough they would still be here.

No one with an ethical compass is interested in social Darwinism. Unless, of course, you'd prefer that I come with some of the local California gangs and rob you and force you out of your house? :salute:

[Nukeman]

It's your fault rather than my own if you lack the ability to make sound ethical judgments and prefer blind reliance on the law instead. That's a sign of a weak and incapable mind, in my own opinion, and it was always those able to realize that there is a divergence between legal and ethical standards that were able to agitate for reform.



What is this supposed to be? You're one of the poorest debaters I've ever encountered.



See? You're falling into the stereotype cast by George Lakoff almost deliberately. :laugh:

If you'd read what I'd written a bit more carefully, however, you'd understand the basis behind the social perceptions that need to be changed. That you're too bullheaded to change is irrelevant; there are many other people that aren't, and that can be biased in a different direction as long as debate on this topic is guided by crude perceptions rather than rigorous analysis.



Unfortunately, that hasn't been the best recipe for survival in the past. See, as put by James Loewell:



Try again, lad!



Yeah, I don't care about legality/illegality. If you don't like illegal things, legalize them. Oh...wait! There's obviously another justification behind criminalization that you refer to. That's what you should be trotting out instead of chanting about illegality.



No one with an ethical compass is interested in social Darwinism. Unless, of course, you'd prefer that I come with some of the local California gangs and rob you and force you out of your house? :salute:
Yep just throw out that pesky law and go back to the day when I could shoot your ass for treaspassing on my property!!!!!!!!!!

[Agnapostate]

Yep just throw out that pesky law and go back to the day when I could shoot your ass for treaspassing on my property!!!!!!!!!!

What "property"? When this country turns into redskin masses under a red star, it'll all be expropriated. :laugh:

[Trigg]

What "property"? When this country turns into redskin masses under a red star, it'll all be expropriated. :laugh:

you're pathetic :lame2:

[HogTrash]

What "property"? When this country turns into redskin masses under a red star, it'll all be expropriated. :laugh:Hmmm?...The "red star" of communism, huh?...Are you sure the "redskin masses" will go for that?

By the way, what will the "redskin masses" do with all the poor helpless defenseless white people?

[Gaffer]

The one thing common among communists is that they all think of themselves being in charge and not part of the masses.

Communism, of any sort, is a pyramid scheme.

[HogTrash]

The one thing common among communists is that they all think of themselves being in charge and not part of the masses.

Communism, of any sort, is a pyramid scheme.The totalitarian police state power structure.

[Gaffer]

The totalitarian police state power structure.

These so called communists posting here don't get it that they are in that bottom two thirds doing the bidding of the top. The top ones are the rich elite.

[HogTrash]

These so called communists posting here don't get it that they are in that bottom two thirds doing the bidding of the top. The top ones are the rich elite.You are so right.....These liberal commie wannabees are nothing more than programmed marxist pawns.

[Agnapostate]

You forgot to add "Jewish." How neglectful of you. :(

[HogTrash]

You forgot to add "Jewish." How neglectful of you. :(If this was directed at me Aggy, I missed your point?! :dunno:

[SassyLady]

It's your fault rather than my own if you lack the ability to make sound ethical judgments and prefer blind reliance on the law instead. That's a sign of a weak and incapable mind, in my own opinion, and it was always those able to realize that there is a divergence between legal and ethical standards that were able to agitate for reform.

Yes I have a weak and incapable mind.....I am incapable of continuing to understand why you continue to think we care whether illegals are anything other than people who belong here legally - according to current law. What you are encountering is that none of us want to agitate for the type of reform you are trying to gestate.



What is this supposed to be? You're one of the poorest debaters I've ever encountered. That was precisely the point - there is no debate. The original people's didn't fight for it and lost it to the current inhabitants - too late to say it wasn' fair - give it back.
Therefore, no argument.




See? You're falling into the stereotype cast by George Lakoff almost deliberately. :laugh: And you still seem to thing this should shame me.......who give a rat's ass about George Lakoff and his opinion about anything?


If you'd read what I'd written a bit more carefully, however, you'd understand the basis behind the social perceptions that need to be changed. That you're too bullheaded to change is irrelevant; there are many other people that aren't, and that can be biased in a different direction as long as debate on this topic is guided by crude perceptions rather than rigorous analysis. No, what you are to "bullheaded" to get is that we DON'T CARE. If you think it is a crude perception to say to you we don't care about what happened in the past, then you are right - we are crude. We care about what is happening now.




Yeah, I don't care about legality/illegality. If you don't like illegal things, legalize them. Oh...wait! There's obviously another justification behind criminalization that you refer to. That's what you should be trotting out instead of chanting about illegality. What????


No one with an ethical compass is interested in social Darwinism. Unless, of course, you'd prefer that I come with some of the local California gangs and rob you and force you out of your house? :salute:

Are you threatening me little man? That would be great.........bring them on cause I belong to the biggest legal Gang in CA ---- CAARNG .....and I guarantee they will bust your little anarchist gang and scatter you to the four corners of the earth making you wonder what just transpired.

PS - I also belong to a gang that is ethical but maybe not legal, but I only call on my family in that gang when the legal one is too busy to take care of the little guys like yourself.

[Gaffer]

Gotta spread the rep.

[Nukeman]

What "property"? When this country turns into redskin masses under a red star, it'll all be expropriated. :laugh:

By "red masses" do you mean what will be left of the treaspasser on MY property that I own and maintain and PROTECT.

Myself and all my children know how to shoot and how to hit what they are aiming at!!!! yaa I can see the red masses right now big red masses of their blood and grey matter!!!!!!

IDIOT!!!!!!!!

[Nukeman]

Gotta spread the rep.

took care of that for yaa!!!!:beer: