Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Bear Stearns]

Or Mexico's laughably atrocious protection of property rights.

That being said, Mexico's immigration laws would be pretty swanky to adopt.

Adopt their immigration laws, and then adopt their entire country into our own.

It'd be a shitshow. Picture how bad Mississippi is, and then make it three times worse. That's what adding Mexico would be like.

[Novus America]

No nation's a nation of immigrants anyway (except for the UAE, perhaps, but they suck). We're a nation of citizens.

Sure. A we are a nation of citizens of diverse ethnic origin.

[Conserative Morality]

Colonial Dutch and Germans were minorities that were either subsumed into the larger Yankee nation or remained on the periphery, they never were the core.

"They weren't the core"

Okay, and?

The various British-descended people in the colonies had largely caste aside their European identities and simply saw themselves as Americans (or Yankees or Southerners or Appalachians, but still unequivocally American). This was something the Founding Fathers all recognized and even celebrated.

1. lol

2. That doesn't magically make them descended from the same ancestors, FFS

Protestants having their own internal disagreements doesn't discount that they were the core religion of the American nation when it began. Shit, one of the Intolerable Acts was the Quebec Act, which gave Catholics more rights. The Americans were pissed about this.

"Protestants not actually being a united group and hating each other doesn't discount a claim of them being the one common uniting religion of the nation"

The Quebec Act gave the Catholic Church power in modern Canuckistan. Want to explain why religious freedom for Catholics (and Jews) was guaranteed by those who fought for and supported the American Revolution? It's almost as if the imposition of religious enclaves was primarily an artifact of British rule in an effort to keep the colonists nice and divided.

[Nea Byzantia]

¿Por que?

"Annex Mexico."
"Restore Mexico's monarchy."
"Calles did nothing wrong."

This is why.

I agree with the second item...

[Nova Cyberia]

If you really think those things are so bad, we should have never annexed the southwest in the first place.

Those things barely existed in the Southwest at the time of annexation, so it wasn't really a problem. Most of Alta California except for coastal missions was wilderness or Indian country. And the places with a larger Hispanic population (Santa Fe and Texas) were demographically swamped by the waves of Americans moving West, so it was never really an issue at the time.

Stopping at the Rio Grande was smart however. Would've been worse if we kept going.

This is where you're wrong. All of Mexico should have been annexed.

[Conserative Morality]

"Stand for something, even if it means committing severe human rights violations."

If you aren't willing to violate anyone's rights, you aren't willing to guarantee anyone's rights.

[Diopolis]

¿Por que?

"Annex Mexico."
"Restore Mexico's monarchy."
"Calles did nothing wrong."

This is why.

Hey, the second is actually a good idea.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm mostly memeing about Uncle Otto.

Mostly.

I'd be considered a dirty socialist by him, after all.

Rightly so, Robespierre.

That's the nicest thing anyone's called me all week. =^)

[Nea Byzantia]

"Annex Mexico."
"Restore Mexico's monarchy."
"Calles did nothing wrong."

This is why.

Hey, the second is actually a good idea.

Thank God... somebody else sees reason...

[Nova Cyberia]

No nation's a nation of immigrants anyway (except for the UAE, perhaps, but they suck). We're a nation of citizens.

Sure. A we are a nation of citizens of diverse ethnic origin.

Nation of citizens is catchier, tbh.

[Conserative Morality]

Sure. A we are a nation of citizens of diverse ethnic origin.

Nation of citizens is catchier, tbh.

Nation of immigrants is catchiest.

[Nova Cyberia]

Hey, the second is actually a good idea.

Thank God... somebody else sees reason...

Which one? The first one or the Napoleonic one?

[Nova Cyberia]

Nation of citizens is catchier, tbh.

Nation of immigrants is catchiest.

An inaccurate misnomer. Most of the people in America were born here, and are citizens.

[Novus America]

So... the Native Americans? I mean, even that is stretching it.

No, not the Indian tribes. They were considered their own nations, not really part of the United States.

It's pretty stupid to tell a 10th generation white American to "go back" to Europe when his ethnic home is here.

Yes. Yes it is. Which is why it is also stupid for them to be an ethno nationalist.
Especially as most have quite and ethnic admixture anyways.

[Conserative Morality]

An inaccurate misnomer. Most of the people in America were born here, and are citizens.

Accuracy is for squares. National mythology is what's important. Most of the people in America can trace their roots to recent immigrant ancestors.

[Diopolis]

Thank God... somebody else sees reason...

Which one? The first one or the Napoleonic one?

There actually isn't a difference anymore. The Napoleonic emperor was childless, so he adopted the heirs of the first emperor, who are now both the Napoleonic and the legitimist claimants.

[Bear Stearns]

An inaccurate misnomer. Most of the people in America were born here, and are citizens.

Accuracy is for squares. National mythology is what's important. Most of the people in America can trace their roots to recent immigrant ancestors.

Not really. The vast majority of black Americans are 6+ generations, and the majority of white Americans have at least some colonial ancestry.

At the very least, the country is still majority descended from people who's families have been here 4+ generations.

Pretty stupid to keep calling them immigrants. Also, it's a dumb national mythology. We have better ones.

[Fahran]

I agree with the second item...

Agustín de Iturbide had good intentions by all accounts, but he was compelled to grapple both with an increasingly liberal Congress and demands for territorial concessions from the United States, who responded to his stern stance amid negotiations by subverting him. He was compelled to resort to more draconian measures, which alienated the military and those who had wanted a constitutional monarch, and eventually lost the landowners when he raised taxes to prosecute the wars against the rebels. Honestly, despite the staunch anti-monarchist sentiments of many Mexicans, we've had two of the better monarchs in history.

[Nea Byzantia]

Which one? The first one or the Napoleonic one?

There actually isn't a difference anymore. The Napoleonic emperor was childless, so he adopted the heirs of the first emperor, who are now both the Napoleonic and the legitimist claimants.

Thank God... somebody else sees reason...

Which one? The first one or the Napoleonic one?

So both...

[Nova Cyberia]

An inaccurate misnomer. Most of the people in America were born here, and are citizens.

Accuracy is for squares. National mythology is what's important. Most of the people in America can trace their roots to recent immigrant ancestors.

Telling people their true origin is somewhere else only serves to divide American society. Time for a better national myth.

[Novus America]

Which one? The first one or the Napoleonic one?

There actually isn't a difference anymore. The Napoleonic emperor was childless, so he adopted the heirs of the first emperor, who are now both the Napoleonic and the legitimist claimants.

What makes them more legitimate than the Hapsburgs?
Sure they were adopted by a branch of the Hapsburgs but only after the originals got removed.
The whole idea of legitimate monarchy is silly, it always starts with who can seize power.
Changes from house to house as they struggle for power.

All monarchies started out as barbarian warlords.

[Fahran]

Nation of citizens is catchier, tbh.

Nation of immigrants is catchiest.

Only to a Jacobin. :^)

[Conserative Morality]

Not really. The vast majority of black Americans are 6+ generations, and the majority of white Americans have at least some colonial ancestry.

At the very least, the country is still majority descended from people who's families have been here 4+ generations.

Pretty stupid to keep calling them immigrants. Also, it's a dumb national mythology. We have better ones.

>> when the percentage of immigrants in the US since the 1850s has been ~10%
>> when the number of immigrants today is 15%
>> when 40% of Americans say at least one grandparent was an immigrant

Jesus Christ, it must really hurt WASPs to be a dying breed if they're resorting to this level of bullshit.

[Bear Stearns]

Accuracy is for squares. National mythology is what's important. Most of the people in America can trace their roots to recent immigrant ancestors.

Telling people their true origin is somewhere else only serves to divide American society. Time for a better national myth.

Really. What's the fun in idealizing America as full of strangers in a strange land rather than as an actual nation, culture, heritage, etc.?

It sounds schizophrenic. Where's the pride in being descended from lame foreigners? Far better national myths include colonial independence narratives and stories of Western conquest.

[Conserative Morality]

Really. What's the fun in idealizing America as full of strangers in a strange land rather than as an actual nation, culture, heritage, etc.?

It sounds schizophrenic. Where's the pride in being descended from lame foreigners? Far better national myths include colonial independence narratives and stories of Western conquest.

I guess it must suck for you lot not being able to say "Do you know who my daddy is?" anymore and get anything but weird looks from folk who probably have Italians or something else suitably terrifying in their family tree.