Current Events > Ur family hasn't been in this country as long as mine, therefore I deserve moar.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Is this a valid principle when it comes to nationalism or patriotism?

I don't know but it's dangerous logic for white nationalists because native people have ultimate claim over the land if you follow that thinking to its ultimate conclusion

I dunno.

Do you think people who have been in the nation for multiple generations and built it with their hands and tax dollars, then died in its wars, should have more say than someone brand new? I'll play devil's advocate until someone gets mad.

Like what "moar" are we even referring to? The middle class gets fed shit sandwiches all day in this country while orange guy gives trillion dollar tax breaks to the elite.

Zikten posted...

I don't know but it's dangerous logic for white nationalists because native people have ultimate claim over the land if you follow that thinking to its ultimate conclusion

Also, lots of black families have longer lineages than most white people in this country.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

Do you think people

You =/= what your grandfather did.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

I dunno.

Do you think people who have been in the nation for multiple generations and built it with their hands and tax dollars, then died in its wars, should have more say than someone brand new? I'll play devil's advocate until someone gets mad.

They cannot and do not get a say. They're dead. Should their descendants get more say, even though they have done none of the things you talk about?

That's the very definition of unearned privilege.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

I dunno.

Do you think people who have been in the nation for multiple generations and built it with their hands and tax dollars, then died in its wars, should have more say than someone brand new? I'll play devil's advocate until someone gets mad.

Like what "moar" are we even referring to? The middle class gets fed shit sandwiches all day in this country while orange guy gives trillion dollar tax breaks to the elite.

no.

ai123 posted...

They cannot and do not get a say. They're dead. Should their descendants get more say, even though they have done none of the things you talk about?

That's the very definition of unearned privilege.

What are we even talking about here, when we say "get a say"? A say in what, everyone who registers can vote and get fucked over by the candidate of their choice. What privilege am I missing?

boxoto posted...

no.

Strong argument.

This is what JD Vance believes and it's odious.

Fuck blood and soil nationalism

lydiaquayle posted...

Is this a valid principle when it comes to nationalism or patriotism?

No.

But then, as a first generation immigrant, Im probably biased.

what's there to say? like, I feel that things should be based on your individual worth/contributions.

otherwise, you get into messy arguments about who might deserve more.

for instance, you (a general "you") say someone whose family paid taxes, fought in wars, etc. might deserve more than someone whose family is new to the country.

but what about those who came from families who did all of that but were never compensated, were subjugated, and so on, like the descendents of slaves, Native Americans, migrant workers and other groups?

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

What are we even talking about here, when we say "get a say"? A say in what, everyone who registers can vote and get fucked over by the candidate of their choice. What privilege am I missing?

You used the phrase in the post I quoted. You were arguing that people who built the nation should have 'more say'. What do you mean by it?

The topic wasn't limited to 'say'. It asks if people whose ancestors have been in the US longer 'deserve' to be prioritised over more recent arrivals. It is likely referring to the vile opinion expressed recently by the right that the US is a 'white' country. That 'white' (European) culture and religion should for the basis of government, and that government should be run in the interests of those of white European descent.

emblem-man posted...

This is what JD Vance believes and it's odious.

Fuck blood and soil nationalism

You'll regret this attitude if we ever have to go to war for real again. People who don't give a shit about this country certainly won't die for it. We are actually protected by people of all races who believe in the very thing you call odious. Some of us still love this country enough to die for it, and that keeps you safe. That's a big deal imo, they deserve respect.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

Do you think people who have been in the nation for multiple generations

And what about all of the slaves and Chinese people and Slavs who built the railroads and highways and etc., and sacrificed their lives and their family legacies in order to construct our infrastructure?

I feel like box and ai are both seeing racial connotations where there don't have to be and it does muddy the waters.

Like it evokes images of white nationalism. Correct? In reality these types of attitudes about our land and history involve people of all races. As someone else said, many black folks have been in this country longer than some more recent immigrants like the waves of Irish and Italians come to mind.

So if a black man said he wanted the border secure because he doesn't want to compete his roofing business against a crew of recent central American rivals who might charge less. Is that valid?

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

People who don't give a shit about this country certainly won't die for it.

So black slaves didn't fight for this country during the Civil War?
Sikh immigrants didn't fight for Britain during WW1?
Italian immigrants didn't fight for this country in WW2?

They deserve less of a say for a country that 'they didn't give a shit about'?

lydiaquayle posted...

And what about all of the slaves and Chinese people and Slavs who built the railroads and highways and etc., and sacrificed their lives and their family legacies in order to construct our infrastructure?

What about them? They are as American as apple pie.

Even at that note. You seem like you fall into this category of thought where.. "white folks" just sat back and smoked their pipe while others did the work building this nation and they then swoop in and took the credit. Is that accurate? I've heard this argument a lot, not sure if that's what you are driving towards.

lydiaquayle posted...

So black slaves didn't fight for this country during the Civil War?
Sikh immigrants didn't fight for Britain during WW1?
Italian immigrants didn't fight for this country in WW2?

They deserve less of a say for a country that 'they didn't give a shit about'?

Is this a serious argument?

Edit - I genuinely can't tell if you are serious

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

So if a black man said he wanted the border secure because he doesn't want to compete his roofing business against a crew of recent central American rivals who might charge less. Is that valid?

Assuming the Central American rivals arrived legally, that's just capitalism, isn't it?

I think that introducing the issue of illegal immigration is muddying the waters. Do people whose family came over in the Mayflower 'deserve' more than someone whose parents came over from Mexico 20 years ago?

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

I feel like box and ai are both seeing racial connotations where there don't have to be and it does muddy the waters.

Like it evokes images of white nationalism. Correct? In reality these types of attitudes about our land and history involve people of all races. As someone else said, many black folks have been in this country longer than some more recent immigrants like the waves of Irish and Italians come to mind.

So if a black man said he wanted the border secure because he doesn't want to compete his roofing business against a crew of recent central American rivals who might charge less. Is that valid?

I feel like, if people are coming here (or any other country) for a better life, or at least, doing business here and are willing to take pennies to do what another person would take dollars for, then that's fair, as long as it's legal.

also, I don't think it's valid we should limit someone's worth in a country due to their place of birth.

lastly, I didn't mean it just through a racial lens, but in the past, the US would have migrants from places like China or Mexico come over to work on farmlands and railroads, amongst other things, and those migrants and their families contributed to the growth of the country.

so, if let's say they were sent back, shouldn't their offspring deserve as much?

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

You'll regret this attitude if we ever have to go to war for real again. People who don't give a shit about this country certainly won't die for it. We are actually protected by people of all races who believe in the very thing you call odious. Some of us still love this country enough to die for it, and that keeps you safe. That's a big deal imo, they deserve respect.

Telling people they should care isnt the solution. Its building a country that is worth giving a shit about. I wouldnt ever fight for the country I was born in. I would fight for the one that I live in (not that I think Id ever be asked to), because I have more respect for it.

ai123 posted...

Assuming the Central American rivals arrived legally, that's just capitalism, isn't it?

I think that introducing the issue of illegal immigration is muddying the waters. Do people whose family came over in the Mayflower 'deserve' more than someone whose parents came over from Mexico 20 years ago?

Excellent point. I should have made it clear I meant migrants.

You have mentioned privilege and deserving "more". Please tell me what that means.

I will offer a counter based off what I think you are saying. You are aware of programs that help recent immigrants including illegals priority in housing for example. That is widely known. If I were to say.. I think someone whose grandfather died on the beach of Normandy, and their family was also struggling with this insane house crisis. If I said they Do deserve priority because they have paid taxes, bled and died. Is that offensive? Thats a serious but good faith question.

Glob posted...

Telling people they should care isnt the solution. Its building a country that is worth giving a shit about. I wouldnt ever fight for the country I was born in. I would fight for the one that I live in (not that I think Id ever be asked to), because I have more respect for it.

Your position is totally legitimate imho.

I used to fantasize about going to war for the United States for example. I Love this place so much other people think it's weird, but I had a great childhood. I just think the USA is excellent.

However in its current state. And my revulsion I feel for the war economy as we saw in Iraq has totally wiped out much of that enthusiasm. As far as dying for some oligarch..

So the natives?

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

Excellent point. I should have made it clear I meant migrants.

You have mentioned privilege and deserving "more". Please tell me what that means.

I will offer a counter based off what I think you are saying. You are aware of programs that help recent immigrants including illegals priority in housing for example. That is widely known. If I were to say.. I think someone whose grandfather died on the beach of Normandy, and their family was also struggling with this insane house crisis. If I said they Do deserve priority because they have paid taxes, bled and died. Is that offensive? Thats a serious but good faith question.

I don't doubt you are arguing in good faith, and I appreciate the way this discussion is being conducted.

I suppose my answer would be that I believe in the principle that help should be given on the basis of need only. Yes, that family you mention absolutely deserves housing. As does anyone in that situation. I would not discriminate (in the sense of making distinctions), based upon the fate of family members from previous generations.

ai123 posted...

I don't doubt you are arguing in good faith, and I appreciate the way this discussion is being conducted.

I suppose my answer would be that I believe in the principle that help should be given on the basis of need only. Yes, that family you mention absolutely deserves housing. As does anyone in that situation. I would not discriminate (in the sense of making distinctions), based upon the fate of family members from previous generations.

Thank you sir.

Let's say I DO make the distinction. Is that offensive?

Another example more current. You maybe notice I have a soft spot for veterans because I feel like, even though to many it's a job, they are very brave. I have very much respect towards them.

If I suggested I don't want any housing going to a recent migrant until our current veterans aren't dying on the streets from drug abuse and neglect right now. Am I fucked up for that?

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

"white folks" just sat back and smoked their pipe while others did the work building this nation and they then swoop in and took the credit. Is that accurate?

I am saying that white people get a lot more credit than they deserve, with conservatives claiming that white people did everything (aka appropriation and white-washing). Whereas black/brown and others get a lot of shit from conservatives from simply demanding that they get fair credit or compensation for the things that their ancestors contributed to this country and for the things that they had to endure from the white majority (aka wokeness and Critical Race Theory).

ESPECIALLY when modern day white people often descended from people who weren't even considered white by their contemporaries at the time.

In the 1810s, the only pure Americans were the British. Everyone else were considered dirty European immigrant scum (Germans, Scots, Scandies).

In the 1860s, then it was the Slavs, Poles, Irish who were dirty immigrant scum, and not considered white people. But the Germans, Scots, and Scandies were considered 'real Americans now'.

In the 1880s, it was the Chinese, Russians, etc who were dirty immigrant scum,.

In the 1920s, it was the Italians and Greeks who were dirty immigrant scum, but the Irish, light-skinned Slavs, Russians, and Poles were now integrating into the White Club of America.

In the 1940s and 50s, it was the Jews who were dirty immigrant scum.

In the 1960s, it was the Vietnamese and Mexicans who were dirty immigrant scum, but now the Italians and Greeks have now joined the White Club of America.

In the 1970s, now it was the new Japanese, Indians, and Middle Easterners who were dirty immigrant scum, but now the Jews and white Mexicans/Hispanics have joined the White Club of America.

And yet, blacks, who have been here long than EVERY MODERN WHITE ETHNIC GROUP IN THIS COUNTRY besides the English and the Dutch, never got to join the White Club of America simply because their skin color had the highest stark difference in skin tone than every other ethnicity.

HOW MANY FUCKING CURRENT WHITE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY have British ancestry? If you do not have British ancestry, then BLACK (the ones descended from North/South American slaves) PEOPLE are MORE AMERICAN than you.

EVEN NOW, there are a bunch of conservative blacks who have joined the "We were here first Club" and have joined the hate against the newest wave of migrants coming into this country.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

If I suggested I don't want any housing going to a recent migrant until our current veterans aren't dying on the streets from drug abuse and neglect right now. Am I fucked up for that?

this is asking something different, though.

we were talking about people whose families have been here for a while vs people who are newer to the country.

both people whose families have been here for generations and more recent immigrants/migrants can both be veterans.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

Thank you sir.

Let's say I DO make the distinction. Is that offensive?

Another example more current. You maybe notice I have a soft spot for veterans because I feel like, even though to many it's a job, they are very brave. I have very much respect towards them.

If I suggested I don't want any housing going to a recent migrant until our current veterans aren't dying on the streets from drug abuse and neglect right now. Am I fucked up for that?

No, I don't find your point of view offensive or fucked up.

We have different perspectives and likely come from very different places. I don't find your views unreasonable, it's just that I don't share them. That said, I do not want to see veterans on the street dying from drug abuse either. I think it's shameful that anyone in our wealthy industrialised nations is abandoned and left to suffer.

Veterans often experience a particular set of problems as a result of their service, and they do deserve to have them addressed.

It might be a valid principle for nationalism or patriotism, but if so that would just show those to be bad systems themselves.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

You are aware of programs that help recent immigrants including illegals priority in housing for example.

I am not aware of 'priority'. I am only aware of programs that were recently funded to provide temporary housing. They do not have 'priority' over veteran affairs programs. It just means that veteran affair programs are being mishandled, and that needs to be fixed.

That doesn't mean that migrants are getting 'priority' over veterans. It just means that administrators fucked up, and we need to make sure that both funding and execution for both programs are administered effectively.

boxoto posted...

this is asking something different, though.

we were talking about people whose families have been here for a while vs people who are newer to the country.

both people whose families have been here for generations and more recent immigrants/migrants can both be veterans.

That's a fair point but I wasn't moving the goalposts so much as having a discussion. You could kick my ass here and I don't care. I'm just flapping my gums.

However I put forth a migrant who didn't come here legally could not serve because you have to be a citizen and they will run your background. So on some level I feel the question is fair.

rick_alverado posted...

It might be a valid principle for nationalism or patriotism, but if so that would just show those to be bad systems themselves.

Patriotism imho isn't a "system" like capitalism or communism. It's a love for ones nation that resides in your heart and soul. Or your brain secularly.

I truly feel like loving your country is a net positive thing, I would even say crucial. This doesn't have to mean.. everyone else is shit however or to be more accurate, beneath "us". But as Glob says, if you want to love your nation? Your nation ought to be lovely.

Going to bed will reply tomorrow.

ai123 posted...

Veterans often experience a particular set of problems as a result of their service, and they do deserve to have them addressed.

Additionally, drug abuse and mental is a lot more difficult to address. I have a sister with schizo-affective disorder, AND abused every major drug that you can list over the last 20 years. I can tell you now -- simply throwing money at the problem doesn't do shit.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

I truly feel like loving your country is a net positive thing,

Define 'country'.

To white nationalists, loving your country means loving a specific culture that they believe is the 'real' America, AND appropriating non-white cultures and white-washing them, and then claiming that it was white culture that was responsible for it (aka Rock Music, aka Yoga, aka Math, aka Pizza, aka Hamburgers, aka Apple Pie, aka Texas BBQ etc., etc., etc.)

Guess what Hamburgers came from Germany -- and they were considered dirty immigrants when they came over.
Guess what Pizza came from Italy -- and they were considered dirty immigrants when they came over.
Guess what Rock Music was inspired by Black Jazz and Blues.
Guess what Yoga was Indian.
Guess what Modern Math was Greek and Middle Eastern.
Guess what Nuclear Power was fucking Jewish, Polish, and Nazi German scientists.
Guess what BBQ was fucking Native South Americans + Portuguese/Spanish influences.

NONE of those things were 'white' inventions, but white people LOVE to trade credit for it -- and claim that all of the best things in the world were invented and built by white people.

To most progressives, loving your country means loving ALL CULTURES of people who have migrated and contributed IN ANY FORM to the government of America, or American infrastructure.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

You'll regret this attitude if we ever have to go to war for real again. People who don't give a shit about this country certainly won't die for it. We are actually protected by people of all races who believe in the very thing you call odious. Some of us still love this country enough to die for it, and that keeps you safe. That's a big deal imo, they deserve respect.

Maybe you misunderstood what I mean by blood and soil nationalism.

I can love this country more than someone else regardless of if they have familial history with the country and I don't.

The fact that you jump to the idea that just because someone doesn't have familial history here, that it means they don't give a shit about the country is bad and completely unamerican .

An American is an American. There are no tiers to American citizenship. That's a fundamental idea of being American

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

If I suggested I don't want any housing going to a recent migrant until our current veterans aren't dying on the streets from drug abuse and neglect right now. Am I fucked up for that?

I feel your mistake is putting it as an either or situation. Helping migrants doesn't preclude helping veterans.

Oh, and guess what? Christianity was invented by a brown West-Asian Semite Jewish guy who was executed by 'light-skinned' Romans.

TheWizardOfOrz posted...

I feel your mistake is putting it as an either or situation. Helping migrants doesn't preclude helping veterans.

Also, many homeless drug addicts and mental health cases refuse to be helped. You can't force them off the streets unless they are a danger to themselves/others. That's the main reason why many vets are homeless.

lydiaquayle posted...

Additionally, drug abuse and mental is a lot more difficult to address. I have a sister with schizo-affective disorder, AND abused every major drug that you can list over the last 20 years. I can tell you now -- simply throwing money at the problem doesn't do shit.

Throwing money blindly at the problem won't help, no.

But the things that would help? They aren't free. They take expertise, long term study, dedicated professionals, and proper facilities. I feel a lot of money is wasted on short-term efforts that aim to deal with an immediate problem. A long term commitment to care is more expensive to start with, but beneficial to the individual and society in the long run.

BiggCoolDaddy posted...

Patriotism imho isn't a "system" like capitalism or communism. It's a love for ones nation that resides in your heart and soul. Or your brain secularly.

I truly feel like loving your country is a net positive thing, I would even say crucial. This doesn't have to mean.. everyone else is shit however or to be more accurate, beneath "us". But as Glob says, if you want to love your nation? Your nation ought to be lovely.

Going to bed will reply tomorrow.

System is probably the wrong word, but regardless of the word, I don't see why I should love my country. The people in my country, sure, but why any differently than the people outside my country? Like, I will feel more strongly about people that I know personally than I do strangers as I have mental and emotional connections with them, but I don't have said connections to all forty-some million people in my country, and not everyone I have said connections with is inside my country.

ai123 posted...

But the things that would help? They aren't free. They take expertise, long term study, dedicated professionals, and proper facilities. I feel a lot of money is wasted on short-term efforts that aim to deal with an immediate problem. A long term commitment to care is more expensive to start with, but beneficial to the individual and society in the long run.

Yes, exactly. But that takes decades, and you can't blame certain Administrations for that, when it was other Administrations that specifically cut funding for mental health facilities and research.

ai123 posted...

I feel a lot of money is wasted on short-term efforts that aim to deal with an immediate problem.

This is why people assume that we are prioritizing migrants over vets. Because throwing money at the migrant issue is a lot easier to execute and succeed, vs the more difficult issue of addressing homeless vets and other Americans who refuse to be helped.