Sh!thole Nations

What is so outrageous about it?

It is a tongue in cheek turn of phrase, thats all. Plenty of people have used it besides Pelosi

Pelosi isnt a progressive

And that woman in the Daily Mail article probably isnt either, I saw nothing in the article that mentions her political persuasion?

 

Who are you answering with this? If it's me, then have the courtesy to click reply. Then I get a nice little notification that tells me I should consider a conversation has begun. Otherwise it's just a point going off into space, uselessly.

Also, I didn't say Pelosi was a progressive. Not that it matters, the very definition of progressive doesn't come close to describing the people who make this claim. However, her expression was certainly "progressive" in look and feel. Particularly in the use of a regressive and regurgitated talking point that attempts yet again to suggest America is the land of white racism.

I used to like Nancy, but then, I used to like a lot of fellow Californians. But something happened and they went from being free thinkers to belittling anyone who didn't toe the exact line they were. Hardly what I'd call progressive, so there we agree on Nancy.

As for Christine, I think it was her temerity to actually say Nazi and Hitler Youth in the Frankfurt airport that set off my prog-dar. As well traveled as she claims to be she should know that Germany and France are two places where you don't give airport security even the slightest amount of crap. And that includes snide remarks. If you don't act like a masochistic cuckold, they'll give you the full treatment. I've never passed through Paris without a "random" shakedown. This woman acted like an entitled fool and they gave her the business, right down to robbing her (charging a fine on the spot).

It's probably a good thing they didn't know her background or they may have arrested her as a spy. But then, "arrest" in Germany is usually a street-level shakedown. I've had several colleagues describe it that way.

 

I disagree. I believe something along the following lines, which comes from my sociology course on racial and ethnic relations. Nothing harmful about a sociological perspective on historical facts, right?

 

I fail to see how this confirms the US was ever a "white" nation. There have always been non-white people here. That was the only point I was making. Only supremacists boast about the US being a white nation, and they're entirely wrong about that.

 

I don't use that sort of language at all. That thought manifested itself in your head, not mine.

 

True, but I think when you make the statement that "The U.S. has never been a white nation" it sounds like you don't think they are responsible for this that and the other thing. It's also like you're implying that white people aren't the ones in power, or that white doesn't set the tone at the top. I think there's something wrong with the statement, but I'm willing to leave it at that.

 

Sounds like you don't care for people based on their color, a rather thin value statement. Most white people in the US don't have any power, so assigning their race to blame for "this, that and the other thing" is rather bigoted and borders on raw racism. What exactly is your claim here?

 

I dont think progressive means what you think it means

 

I don't have a mind for arguing, but I'll try to show you the basic premise I'm trying to present from my text.

 

Lol, you're not going to win any arguments providing facts.

 

Mandy Patinkin?

 

Arguing is pointless.

So is buying such a generalized narrative that attempts to cram 600 years of history into a paragraph. I have always wondered why the debt of slavery, a practice that's likely as old as humanity, comes due only for the Americans. And really, what nations were NOT formed by some kind of conquest?

Prior to the US forming, slavery was a leftover relic from British rule. The reality is that it took the US less than a century to bring slavery to an end, at a substantial cost. Even when slavery was legal in the US, MOST Americans didn't own any and didn't support the practice at all. It was the realm of the wealthy that kept it going. Which is again why I think it's rather trite and disingenuous to lay the blame for these historical events onto people in America based entirely upon the color of their skin. That is wrong.

So, who can we "punish" for these ancient crimes?

 

Oh, it's a good book! It talks about all the other places that took slaves too.

Here's another supportive quote:

It goes on to describe the common approaches to justifying racism. There names are the Individualistic Fallacy, the Legalistic Fallacy, the Tokenistic Fallacy, the Ahistorical Fallacy, and the Fixed Fallacy.

Here is a piece about "The Atlantic Slave Trade"

 

Interesting stuff. So where do you figure we have not learned from the past? Where do you find the "white nation" agenda advancing?

 

George, I think it's really hard to make a persuasive case that whites have not run the United States since its inception. To do so is to take a trip up that long river in Africa. The United States was initially governed by mostly wealthy white people--specifically white males. The only non-whites were Native Americans and African Americans who were denied suffrage. Women also could not vote. It's true that not all white males had power, since property ownership was originally a criterion, but this was eliminated in 1843. It's clear, however, that "the people" for whom the government was supposed to be of, by, and for were white. To argue otherwise is to be oblivious to history and the writings of these men. Indians weren't given full civil rights until the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1868. Slaves weren't citizens until the Civil Rights (13th, 14th, & 15th) Amendments after the Civil War and held inferior legal status until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Women were considered unfit to participate in our political life--until the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. And these groups are still disproportionately under-represented in the ranks of our economic, social, and political elites. Count their numbers in Congress, the Presidency, and the courts.Do the same at the state and local levels. There have been gradual improvements--most conspicuously with the election of an African American President. And women and minorities have made gains in many areas. The backlash has been fierce, and the incumbent Birther rode it into office. So what is this argument about?

 

Pretty sure the birther rode the Latino backlash into office. Which is pretty much the only minority you didn't mention.

 

Pretty sure the Birther movement was directed at Obama--not a Latino. That's how Trump made his political debut. Does including Latinos change the argument--i.e., that the United States has been predominantly a white-run nation?

 

Your asking a question connected to something I disagree with. He asked for a certificate from Obama before he ever ran for president. But he ran the wall line hard.

 

Well I wish I could pick out just one example that really hits home with me. There are many stark examples of racism in society. But rather than detract further from the thread I'd like to use this opportunity to share the definition of one of the fallcies: the ahistorical fallacy. It's quite a quote so I don't really expect anyone to read it, but I feel like it's the truth.