NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:32 pm**

Krasny-Volny wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:For background. I’ve seen increased instances of people in the US going off on others for speaking a language other than English. I myself have had this problem too, of an American angrily telling me to stop speaking Spanish and speak English as I’m in the US. Spanish however is not the only language spoken than sometimes gets some Americans angry. Mandarin, Korean, Tagalog, French, among others can set some people off.

The times I’ve cared to asked why they’re getting upset, the answer I usually get is “because illegal immigrants...” Particularly when Spanish is involved. But you see, in many of these instances I’ve seen and personally experienced, the people involved are legally in the country. Legal residents, like myself, or legally in the US as students.

When these people are called up on their behavior, the stuff that comes out is glaring and full of hate. But, is the actual drive a concern about illegal immigration or is it something deeper and darker? What say you, NSG?

In the instances that it’s happened to me, I don’t think it’s a concern about illegal immigration. That’s my perception at least.

Note: more often than not, you will get others to intervene and shut up the offender, which is still a relief to see or witness, btw.

Note 2: one answer I got was that the person thought I was talking about them. I had to laugh and condescendingly ask them if they though they were the center of the universe or something.

Don't you live up north somewhere? Seems to me the last place in the country where anybody would get ragged on for being from outside the states is in the northeast where everybody's half Italian or Bosnian or Turkish or Chinese or Puerto Rican.

I do speak languages other than English, but I rarely have the occasion to use them in public. If somebody else starts speaking to me casually in a language other than English I can indeed understand, and there are non-speakers present, I respond in English or do not respond at all. I just don't consider that courteous to the other folks present, who may feel as if they are a) being purposefully excluded from the conversation, or b) the target of some inside joke we do not wish them to overhear. I will make an exception if I know the individual in question can't speak English well, and is not being impolite on purpose.

I wish but no, I live down South. And in my neck of the woods the big boogeyman is “illegals!”, as anyone who speaks Spanish tends to be looked at as or is suspected of being one. It’s supremely weird.

The way I see it, if someone is speaking a language I can’t understand with friends or family, it’s 1) none of my business and, 2) not a crime. There’s no need to blow a gasket. Which is why I roll my eyes about the “Stop speaking X language, we’re in ‘murica so go back to your country!” crowd and act condescending. It’s idiotic, it’s ignorant. There’s no real issue with you speaking a different language. None.

I have no problem with people who are monolingual, which is why it boggles the mind when they get so upset about another language being spoken around them. But it’s amusing to watch them get owned by other Americans about their behavior, I’ll be honest.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:35 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Grimmsland wrote:Also... this is where "White" comes from. What a shallow identifier. Look.. I understand that to a certain extent (especially in a dangerous scenario) that you are what others identify you as and in that case your skin is your uniform .. but c'mon.. to yourself? "I'm white" .. what the fuck is that? What do they identify with .. WHO do they identify with? Everyone else seems to identify their being "White southerners" with being land stealers, slavers and traitors. Wouldn't it behoooooove them to learn more about their history than that?

Well, white was originally created to by colonial "Scientists" to describe those who live in and around the Mediterranean area (Europe, The Middle East, and North Africa), but then evolved over the course of ~500 years depending on religion and how successful a nation was at colonialism/colonialist decent. Italians for example who originally considered white, but then they failed at colonialism and had a lot of economic/political problems that "white" countries shouldn't go through during the colonial era, so they were seen as generally being not white.

Scientific racists divided mankind into a few primary races, those being mainly Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and sometimes Australoid and Malay too. Within those races were many "subraces," and the Caucasian race was alleged to have several subraces, those being Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and sometimes Dinaric and Arabid/Armenoid. To racists of the time, white referred to a specific subset of Caucasians, the Nordic people and related groups such as Germans and Brits. So while Italians were always classified as caucasoid, as were Arabs and Greeks and Spaniards and Albanians, they weren't seen as white and a few of those groups are not seen as white in the present day. All whites are Caucasian but not all caucasians were or are seen as white.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:38 pm**

Rojava Free State wrote:
New haven america wrote:Well, white was originally created to by colonial "Scientists" to describe those who live in and around the Mediterranean area (Europe, The Middle East, and North Africa), but then evolved over the course of ~500 years depending on religion and how successful a nation was at colonialism/colonialist decent. Italians for example who originally considered white, but then they failed at colonialism and had a lot of economic/political problems that "white" countries shouldn't go through during the colonial era, so they were seen as generally being not white.

Scientific racists divided mankind into a few primary races, those being mainly Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and sometimes Australoid and Malay too. Within those races were many "subraces," and the Caucasian race was alleged to have several subraces, those being Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and sometimes Dinaric and Arabid/Armenoid. To racists of the time, white referred to a specific subset of Caucasians, the Nordic people and related groups such as Germans and Brits. So while Italians were always classified as caucasoid, as were Arabs and Greeks and Spaniards and Albanians, they weren't seen as white and a few of those groups are still not seen as white to this day. All whites are Caucasian but not all caucasians were or are seen as white.

That happened later on, like the 17-1800's.

Spanish and Portuguese for example were considered at the same rank as Northern Europeans because of their colonial power (And the fact that they invented the entire bloody racial system to begin with, why would they place themselves at the bottom?)

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:39 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
Scientific racists divided mankind into a few primary races, those being mainly Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and sometimes Australoid and Malay too. Within those races were many "subraces," and the Caucasian race was alleged to have several subraces, those being Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and sometimes Dinaric and Arabid/Armenoid. To racists of the time, white referred to a specific subset of Caucasians, the Nordic people and related groups such as Germans and Brits. So while Italians were always classified as caucasoid, as were Arabs and Greeks and Spaniards and Albanians, they weren't seen as white and a few of those groups are still not seen as white to this day. All whites are Caucasian but not all caucasians were or are seen as white.

That happened later on, like the 17-1800's.

Spanish and Portuguese for example were considered at the same rank as Northern Europeans because of their colonial power (And the fact that they invented the entire bloody racial system to begin with, why would they place themselves at the bottom?)

Not by the late 1800s they weren't. By then, Nordicism was a thing.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:40 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
Scientific racists divided mankind into a few primary races, those being mainly Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and sometimes Australoid and Malay too. Within those races were many "subraces," and the Caucasian race was alleged to have several subraces, those being Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and sometimes Dinaric and Arabid/Armenoid. To racists of the time, white referred to a specific subset of Caucasians, the Nordic people and related groups such as Germans and Brits. So while Italians were always classified as caucasoid, as were Arabs and Greeks and Spaniards and Albanians, they weren't seen as white and a few of those groups are still not seen as white to this day. All whites are Caucasian but not all caucasians were or are seen as white.

That happened later on, like the 17-1800's.

Spanish and Portuguese for example were considered at the same rank as Northern Europeans because of their colonial power (And the fact that they invented the entire bloody racial system to begin with, why would they place themselves at the bottom?)

At one point in history Spain at least was seen as more African than European, seeing as the Moorish occupation lasted for so long. That slowly began to change as the Moorish hold started shrinking.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:43 pm**

Rojava Free State wrote:
New haven america wrote:That happened later on, like the 17-1800's.

Spanish and Portuguese for example were considered at the same rank as Northern Europeans because of their colonial power (And the fact that they invented the entire bloody racial system to begin with, why would they place themselves at the bottom?)

Not by the late 1800s they weren't. By then, Nordicism was a thing.

Yes, because it evolved and moved away from their control.

If they invented it why would they place themselves at the bottom?

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:58 pm**

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
New haven america wrote:That happened later on, like the 17-1800's.

Spanish and Portuguese for example were considered at the same rank as Northern Europeans because of their colonial power (And the fact that they invented the entire bloody racial system to begin with, why would they place themselves at the bottom?)

At one point in history Spain at least was seen as more African than European, seeing as the Moorish occupation lasted for so long. That slowly began to change as the Moorish hold started shrinking.

Yep, that it true.

Bigotry before the colonial era wasn't based on skin color but more so place of origin or religion.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:09 pm**

Mirjt wrote:The point is you can have multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-nation states that are perfectly functional societies, as well as have societies that share mostly the same language and still be divided over many other cultural aspects.

You can have multi-ethnic societies under certain limited conditions. You cannot simply assume human harmony. We have been in the midst of a left-wing campaign to break down the barrier of individual moral liability for white Americans for several years ("all white people benefit from white supremacy" + "founding the country was white supremacy" + "renounce your privilege (unearned benefit)") that, when taken together, suggest some pretty nasty things - and are often accompanied by very confrontational attitudes that suggest taking the less charitable readings.

Assuming all cultures and all religions are sufficiently equal implies a belief that all political ideologies are also equal. They aren't.

Stop viewing humans and their societies as pure beings of reason and start viewing them as the ecologies constructed of and by evolved animals that they are.

Mirjt wrote:Historically (and this still mostly holds true today), leftists have been against nationalism (left-wing nationalism being an outlier). Leftists also tend to not be in favor of identity politics, that is a liberal (which is not leftist despite the impression that most Americans have and that U.S. media give off, liberalism is more centrist or center-right) idea, that oppression becomes solved when we have more diverse oppressors, all all we need are more women and other marginalized groups to become CEOs and get elected - leftists generally don't buy into that idea. Leftists do believe that there are real struggles against systemic racism, sexism, ableism, and other forms of oppression, but that is not the same thing as identity politics, you can read all about that in

Ashkera wrote:Leftists are perfectly fine with stirring up racial consciousness to advance their own left-wing interests; the current alternative identitarian movement is neither US Conservative, openly right-wing, nor liberal.

It's a strategic choice and part of a new and broader understanding of 'Left' in which race and class are "intersectional," such that there can be oppressed races and not only oppressed classes.

Further, you need to increase your understanding of the left-identitarian system - its broken theory of knowledge in which all opposition are counter-revolutionaries (or in this case, all criticism is "racist"), embracing of collective moral responsibility and rejection of individualism, and calls for mass redistribution are all illiberal elements that have caused major problems in Communism in the past. The symbols may be different, but many of the mechanics are the same.

In other words, it is fundamentally left-wing in all the wrong ways.

Mirjt wrote:America's most well-renowned Democratic Socialist, five time Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party of America, and co-founder of the IWW, Eugene V. Debs said: "I have no country to fight for, my country is the earth, I am a citizen of the world." I agree with that sentiment.

There is no global government, therefore you cannot be a "global citizen." If you do have loyalty to an as-yet non-existent world government, please do keep in mind - governments often go bad, so making it literally impossible to escape a government is a terrible idea.

Countries are fundamentally based on networks of reciprocal obligation shaped by the constraints required to sustain them.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:24 pm**

Ashkera wrote:
Mirjt wrote:America's most well-renowned Democratic Socialist, five time Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party of America, and co-founder of the IWW, Eugene V. Debs said: "I have no country to fight for, my country is the earth, I am a citizen of the world." I agree with that sentiment.

There is no global government, therefore you cannot be a "global citizen." If you do have loyalty to an as-yet non-existent world government, please do keep in mind - governments often go bad, so making it literally impossible to escape a government is a terrible idea.

First of all, Eugene V. Debs was not saying he was registered with some global organization as a citizen or that we should be loyal to some global state, he was using rhetorical language. The sentiment he was expressing is that we should be loyal to humanity as a whole, we should be loyal to notions of love what is good for all people, we should not be loyal to any state or any government or any culture, and if asked to fight in any violent conflict we should refuse, instead we should view all others as our common brothers, sisters, and siblings across the globe.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:32 pm**

In the end, US Hispanics have $1.7 trillion in purchasing power and rising. This in itself is good for the overall US economy, everyone wins. And with there population expected to go up to 132 million by 2050 means non-Hispanics in the US better get use to it.

This on buying power of US Hispanics - https://www.nawrb.com/hispanic-buying-power/

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:33 pm**

Mirjt wrote:First of all, Eugene V. Debs was not saying he was registered with some global organization as a citizen or that we should be loyal to some global state, he was using rhetorical language. The sentiment he was expressing is that we should be loyal to humanity as a whole, we should be loyal to notions of love what is good for all people, we should not be loyal to any state or any government or any culture, and if asked to fight in any violent conflict we should refuse, instead we should view all others as our common brothers, sisters, and siblings across the globe.

The mutual exclusivity of multiple belief systems precludes this. National states, including civic national states, are symbiotic meta-organisms that arose in an environment of scarcity, rather than purely top down constructs which will leave freedom and brotherhood when removed. They require at least a minimum level of loyalty and cultural synchronization in order to generate enough force to function.

This unity of humanity exists in your own mind. While empathy can be extended, the mutual exclusivity of beliefs can only be resolved through the division of humanity into multiple armed sovereign states. The only alternative is world conquest and forcible suppression of competing belief systems outside the range of those that can survive with each other under Liberalism.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:35 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
Not by the late 1800s they weren't. By then, Nordicism was a thing.

Yes, because it evolved and moved away from their control.

If they invented it why would they place themselves at the bottom?

Racial systems are different based on the culture involved. To the Japanese for example, they are the Supreme Yamato race and are superior to all others. The Spanish probably thought they were superior. But in the British and American systems, the Spanish occupied maybe a midway point on the totem pole between black people and nordic types.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:37 pm**

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Krasny-Volny wrote:
Don't you live up north somewhere? Seems to me the last place in the country where anybody would get ragged on for being from outside the states is in the northeast where everybody's half Italian or Bosnian or Turkish or Chinese or Puerto Rican.

I do speak languages other than English, but I rarely have the occasion to use them in public. If somebody else starts speaking to me casually in a language other than English I can indeed understand, and there are non-speakers present, I respond in English or do not respond at all. I just don't consider that courteous to the other folks present, who may feel as if they are a) being purposefully excluded from the conversation, or b) the target of some inside joke we do not wish them to overhear. I will make an exception if I know the individual in question can't speak English well, and is not being impolite on purpose.

I wish but no, I live down South. And in my neck of the woods the big boogeyman is “illegals!”, as anyone who speaks Spanish tends to be looked at as or is suspected of being one. It’s supremely weird.

The way I see it, if someone is speaking a language I can’t understand with friends or family, it’s 1) none of my business and, 2) not a crime. There’s no need to blow a gasket. Which is why I roll my eyes about the “Stop speaking X language, we’re in ‘murica so go back to your country!” crowd and act condescending. It’s idiotic, it’s ignorant. There’s no real issue with you speaking a different language. None.

I have no problem with people who are monolingual, which is why it boggles the mind when they get so upset about another language being spoken around them. But it’s amusing to watch them get owned by other Americans about their behavior, I’ll be honest.

I do think blowing one's gasket about this kind of thing is incredibly disrespectful and people deserve to be put in their place for it.

Remember that our fellow Southerners - especially the good ole boys and dear old things most prone to such outbursts - are especially vulnerable to being shamed for their poor manners, and fighting this sort of ill-mannered outburst with cold, formal courtesy and "the look" is what I'd do in that situation. I'd go so far as to say you'll even get an apology if you do it right.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:44 pm**

South Odreria 2 wrote:
Cisairse wrote:I struggle to see how non-ethnonationalist nationalism agrees with the hypothesis that leftists oppose civic nationalism and support identitarianism. If anything, this supports my point even further.

That being said, left-wing nationalism is yucky and not really a big part of the leftist sphere.

Leftwing nationalism is the most common type of leftism on planet Earth.

interesting claim you make.
Do you have proof to back it up?

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:45 pm**

Conterale wrote:
South Odreria 2 wrote:Leftwing nationalism is the most common type of leftism on planet Earth.

interesting claim you make.
Do you have proof to back it up?

They win elections.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:56 pm**

Kowani wrote:
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:On top of that, American isn't even a democracy.

True, it’s an oligarchy.

no. it's a republic

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:02 pm**

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:
Kowani wrote:True, it’s an oligarchy.

no. it's a republic

It can be a republic and still be an oligarchy. All a republic means is that the government is a public matter and not the private property of some monarch, or group of nobility. An oligarchy means rule by a few, so does a small group of people effectively rule over the government that is of public matter, YES, they are the obscenely wealthy, they are the CEOs, they are the socio-economic-political elite. That makes us a oligarchic republic, despite our attempts to be a democratic republic we have failed (and you can argue that the founder fathers never really wanted a democratic republic in the first place).

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:07 pm**

Mirjt wrote:
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:no. it's a republic

It can be a republic and still be an oligarchy. All a republic means is that the government is a public matter and not the private property of some monarch, or group of nobility. An oligarchy means rule by a few, so does a small group of people effectively rule over the government that is of public matter, YES, they are the obscenely wealthy, they are the CEOs, they are the socio-economic-political elite. That makes us a oligarchic republic, despite our attempts to be a democratic republic we have failed (and you can argue that the founder fathers never really wanted a democratic republic in the first place).

It's not just a few people that are involved in government. There are hundreds of people involved, and they certainly can't all be CEO's or uber-rich.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:10 pm**

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:
Kowani wrote:True, it’s an oligarchy.

no. it's a republic

Rome proved you can do both at once.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:11 pm**

Try to look at it from their perspective. Its not because they want to listen in on your conversation (although some people probably do by default if they're nosy). Its that they notice English being gradually displaced by Spanish or other languages from overseas and they don't like that trend one bit. Its got to be frustrating that the country is changing in ways they don't approve of.

Other countries are allowed to protect their own national way of life/etc. while the US is expected by liberal types to be a dumping ground for the rest of the world and to accomodate other cultures to the detriment of our own when instead, we should perhaps say no to being too inclusive and instead do more of our own thing.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:11 pm**

Rojava Free State wrote:
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:no. it's a republic

Rome proved you can do both at once.

Carthage would be a more apt example.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:14 pm**

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:
Mirjt wrote:
It can be a republic and still be an oligarchy. All a republic means is that the government is a public matter and not the private property of some monarch, or group of nobility. An oligarchy means rule by a few, so does a small group of people effectively rule over the government that is of public matter, YES, they are the obscenely wealthy, they are the CEOs, they are the socio-economic-political elite. That makes us a oligarchic republic, despite our attempts to be a democratic republic we have failed (and you can argue that the founder fathers never really wanted a democratic republic in the first place).

It's not just a few people that are involved in government. There are hundreds of people involved, and they certainly can't all be CEO's or uber-rich.

That is the bureaucracy, the administration, the official bodies of government, that is not who is ruling. In a democracy the people should be ruling, however several studies have shown that what the people want rarely affects policy decisions, however when it is a concern, or issue, or priority for the top 0.1%, there is an almost 100% rate of it influencing policy decisions. That means that even though we hold elections and have secret ballot boxes, the people actually have no power or influence and aren't ruling, therefore we are not a democracy, we are an oligarchy (rule by the few does not mean a number in the single digits, it means a small number of people compared to the population as a whole). That is not even taking into account all the other anti-democratic aspects of our government system, like first past the post voting, money in politics, the electoral college, gerrymandering, repression of protests (which is one method for the public to exert political pressure and to have rule by the people), etc...

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:21 pm**

Mirjt wrote:
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:It's not just a few people that are involved in government. There are hundreds of people involved, and they certainly can't all be CEO's or uber-rich.

That is the bureaucracy, the administration, the official bodies of government, that is not who is ruling. In a democracy the people should be ruling, however several studies have shown that what the people want rarely affects policy decisions, however when it is a concern, or issue, or priority for the top 0.1%, there is an almost 100% rate of it influencing policy decisions. That means that even though we hold elections and have secret ballot boxes, the people actually have no power or influence and aren't ruling, therefore we are not a democracy, we are an oligarchy (rule by the few does not mean a number in the single digits, it means a small number of people compared to the population as a whole). That is not even taking into account all the other anti-democratic aspects of our government system, like first past the post voting, money in politics, the electoral college, gerrymandering, repression of protests (which is one method for the public to exert political pressure and to have rule by the people), etc...

There are things in the US government that are undemocratic because the US is not a democracy! It's a Republic! But I agree, money in politics, gerrymandering, and repression of protests are wrong. But be mindful, peaceful protests are not the same things as riots.

And what do you mean the people aren't ruling? We vote for people to make decisions on our behalf. If those people refuse to get out of office after they've been voted out, they will go to jail.
The people have the ultimate say.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:42 pm**

Krasny-Volny wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I wish but no, I live down South. And in my neck of the woods the big boogeyman is “illegals!”, as anyone who speaks Spanish tends to be looked at as or is suspected of being one. It’s supremely weird.

The way I see it, if someone is speaking a language I can’t understand with friends or family, it’s 1) none of my business and, 2) not a crime. There’s no need to blow a gasket. Which is why I roll my eyes about the “Stop speaking X language, we’re in ‘murica so go back to your country!” crowd and act condescending. It’s idiotic, it’s ignorant. There’s no real issue with you speaking a different language. None.

I have no problem with people who are monolingual, which is why it boggles the mind when they get so upset about another language being spoken around them. But it’s amusing to watch them get owned by other Americans about their behavior, I’ll be honest.

I do think blowing one's gasket about this kind of thing is incredibly disrespectful and people deserve to be put in their place for it.

Remember that our fellow Southerners - especially the good ole boys and dear old things most prone to such outbursts - are especially vulnerable to being shamed for their poor manners, and fighting this sort of ill-mannered outburst with cold, formal courtesy and "the look" is what I'd do in that situation. I'd go so far as to say you'll even get an apology if you do it right.

If only they did but you’d be surprised (or not) at how many do stick to their guns. Even in the face of being called out by other fellow Southerners. In the end it’s a big whatever, “remain stupid”. Back home we say that there’s no worse kind of blind person than the one who willfully chooses not to see.

I just want honesty, you know. No bullshit subterfuge. Conclusion: The illegal immigrant “reason” is a petty cover. You don’t want to hear a different language spoken because you’re a xenophobe.

I still think you’re an asshat who deserves contempt but at least you’re an honest asshat. (Not you personally, btw)

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:46 pm**

South Odreria 2 wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
Rome proved you can do both at once.

Carthage would be a more apt example.

It is a tragedy Carthage wasn't allowed to continue.

NationStates

Is it about illegal immigration or...