Support Deportation of Hispanic Illegals!

[Agnapostate]

It's just important to remember that enforcement should have started in 1492, with people that were actually Hispanic, instead of Indians baptized and indoctrinated as such. ;)

[Obrero Rebelde]

Fuck you!

[Ocean Seal]

Fuck you!
El estaba burlándose de la ley no insultando a los hispanos diciendo que si la ley hubiera haber existido hace 500 anos entonces lo hubieran deportado a Colon.

[Stand Your Ground]

No human is illegal.

[Agnapostate]

Humans that commit genocide should be.

[redwasp]

peace,

marx and engels explained that the role of the bourgeoisie in history is both revolutionary and conservative. the enslavement of the american continent, however barbaric it was, did open the road for the industrialisation of western europe. this industrialisation made the development of the most advanced technological means of production possible. socialism would never be an option without these means of production.

they wrote:



Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
(...)
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
(...)
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.
(...)
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed.
(...)
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
(...)
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.


i believe we should condemn the brutal and barbaric colonisation of the americas by the european bourgeoisie, as we should condemn the proletarisation of the european working class and their exploitation. but we should understand that the revolt of these workers against the bourgois exploitation will be the ground in which the seed of the socialist revolution is planted. incha'allah it will one day grow strong enough to end all exploitation of man by man.

peace,

redwasp

[Red Saxon]

This pisses me off. How does crossing a border signify something illegal when they really have just as much right to be here as I do? I was just born here, it's nothing I or anyone else did.

[cska]

This pisses me off. How does crossing a border signify something illegal when they really have just as much right to be here as I do? I was just born here, it's nothing I or anyone else did.

You misunderstood the OP. He wants to kick all immigrants (other than the original Native Americans) out. :D

I consider this crazy, and would like to point out that the Native Americans are happy to have us here as long as we give them enough of the land and don't wipe them out... It was only the whites who didn't want to live side by side with the Native Americans. Nevertheless, we need to treat the Native Americans a lot better than we currently do.

[Agnapostate]

No, just demonstrating the ironic consequences of consistent application of jingoists' principles. They aren't my own principles.

[Red Saxon]

You misunderstood the OP. He wants to kick all immigrants (other than the original Native Americans) out. :D

I consider this crazy, and would like to point out that the Native Americans are happy to have us here as long as we give them enough of the land and don't wipe them out... It was only the whites who didn't want to live side by side with the Native Americans. Nevertheless, we need to treat the Native Americans a lot better than we currently do.Oh, that makes perfect sense now :laugh:

[counterblast]

the Native Americans are happy to have us here as long as we give them enough of the land and don't wipe them out...

Did you poll "the" Native "Americans" on whether they're happy to have you here, or are you making replacing your assumptions for Native consensus?

[cska]

Did you poll "the" Native "Americans" on whether they're happy to have you here, or are you making replacing your assumptions for Native consensus?

There's lies, damned lies, and there is statistics. I'm not going to try to use statistics to prove my point. I have enough firsthand experience to know that I am right. I have met Native Americans from diverse backgrounds and not a single one of them wants to kick anyone out of this country. Most people, Native Americans included, aren't as hateful as whites.

[A.R.Amistad]

Judging from what I read, this is merely a bunch of historical idealism. Isn't the issue of deporting anyone based on things that transpired over 400 years ago a moot issue?

[Agnapostate]

Does this have to be explained again? There's no advocacy of deportation/repatriation of anyone. This isn't an argument; it's a devil's advocate counterargument to the jingoists.

[synthesis]

I wonder if RevLeft has some secret filter that makes its members unable to take anything at anything but face value. (That's probably the nicest way possible to say what I want to say.)


Does this have to be explained again? There's no advocacy of deportation/repatriation of anyone. This isn't an argument; it's a devil's advocate counterargument to the jingoists

Mao was right about one thing; power flows from the barrel of a gun, not from argumentation, rhetoric, and logic. Anti-immigration ideologues don't really need the latter; those who enforce their agendas are wielding the same tool as their moral progenitors over five centuries ago - that is, the former.

Trying to point out logical inconsistencies in their arguments is like fucking a trout - it might be fun at the time, but it's gonna be a slippery ordeal, and it's sure as hell not going to bear you any fruit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Trying to point out logical inconsistencies in their arguments is like fucking a trout - it might be fun at the time, but it's gonna be a slippery ordeal, and it's sure as hell not going to bear you any fruit.

:blink:

[Ocean Seal]

No, just demonstrating the ironic consequences of consistent application of jingoists' principles. They aren't my own principles.
Yeah a lot of people misinterpreted what he said, if you're on revleft you wouldn't say something like that seriously. This site can occasionally use some humor.
Got yo back.

[Klaatu]

There's lies, damned lies, and there is statistics. I'm not going to try to use statistics to prove my point. I have enough firsthand experience to know that I am right. I have met Native Americans from diverse backgrounds and not a single one of them wants to kick anyone out of this country. Most people, Native Americans included, aren't as hateful as whites.

I don't doubt that for a minute. I've known native americans, blacks, hispanics, indians (india), muslims, asians, chaldeans, filipinos, africans (from nigeria) russians, polish (when it was communist) etc etc...

All have been cool with me (maybe it's just me, but...) The most hateful MFer's I've met, were "uneducated" whites! Why is this???

("educated whites" seem somewhat less prejudiced than "uneducated whites")

BTW I am an educated middle-aged white male

[counterblast]

Judging from what I read, this is merely a bunch of historical idealism. Isn't the issue of deporting anyone based on things that transpired over 400 years ago a moot issue?

I guess if you consider colonization, slavery, and genocide of an entire population, the effects of which still oppress Black and Native communities today, "moot".

[counterblast]

I have met Native Americans from diverse backgrounds and not a single one of them wants to kick anyone out of this country. Most people, Native Americans included, aren't as hateful as whites.


I don't doubt that for a minute. I've known native americans, blacks, hispanics, indians (india), muslims, asians, chaldeans, filipinos, africans (from nigeria) russians, polish (when it was communist) etc etc...

All have been cool with me (maybe it's just me, but...) The most hateful MFer's I've met, were "uneducated" whites! Why is this???


Please stop, both of you.

Your attempts at being an "ally", is actually perpetuating Eurocentrism.

Why is it that people of color are always given a single, collective consciousness; while white people are free to have any opinion they wish?

Is the underlying message really that people of color aren't people, we're just a demographic?

English and French anthropologists in the 19th century routinely did the same thing when travelling to Africa and Asia; as outsiders, they studied people they deemed "primitives". They made sweeping generalizations about entire populations, and used these generalizations to paint a false narrative of these people.

You can try to make it more acceptable by making it a positive generalization all you want; but at the end of the day, "All Native Americans are friendly" is as fucked up as "All Native Americans are blood-thirsty killers"...

[Foldered]

Please stop, both of you.
Is the underlying message really that people of color aren't people, we're just a demographic?

English and French anthropologists in the 19th century routinely did the same thing when travelling to Africa and Asia; as outsiders, they studied people they deemed "primitives". They made sweeping generalizations about entire populations, and used these generalizations to paint a false narrative of these people.

Thank you for pointing out. The fact that EnviroWhacko (nothing against them) qualified their post with "BTW I am an educated middle-aged white male" speaks to what you're saying.

[Klaatu]

I never said "all _______" are friendly. I only stated that those I have met were friendly. What's wrong with that?

[Klaatu]

Thank you for pointing out. The fact that EnviroWhacko (nothing against them) qualified their post with "BTW I am an educated middle-aged white male" speaks to what you're saying.

Jezzus... I am just putting a frame of reference on my observations, so the reader knows my perspective. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

[Klaatu]

I don't doubt that for a minute. I've known native americans, blacks, hispanics, indians (india), muslims, asians, chaldeans, filipinos, africans (from nigeria) russians, polish (when it was communist) etc etc...

All have been cool with me (maybe it's just me, but...) The most hateful MFer's I've met, were "uneducated" whites! Why is this???

("educated whites" seem somewhat less prejudiced than "uneducated whites")

BTW I am an educated middle-aged white male

I should have made a distinction between urban whites and rural whites. I live in a big city. It is not uncommon to see groups of teens of mixed race. Black kids and white kids these days hang out together, something which was rare when I was a kid in the 1960s. Rural whites, on the other hand, seem to be as prejudiced as ever, probably because here in the northern US, most minorities live in cities and few live in rural areas (unlike the southern US) and never really get to know people from other backgrounds.

[Klaatu]

Please stop, both of you.

Your attempts at being an "ally", is actually perpetuating Eurocentrism.

Why is it that people of color are always given a single, collective consciousness; while white people are free to have any opinion they wish?

Is the underlying message really that people of color aren't people, we're just a demographic?

English and French anthropologists in the 19th century routinely did the same thing when travelling to Africa and Asia; as outsiders, they studied people they deemed "primitives". They made sweeping generalizations about entire populations, and used these generalizations to paint a false narrative of these people.

You can try to make it more acceptable by making it a positive generalization all you want; but at the end of the day, "All Native Americans are friendly" is as fucked up as "All Native Americans are blood-thirsty killers"...

I'm sure there are people that fit your analysis, that is, being "fake" anti-bigot and all of that... We see them in politics all the time.

[synthesis]

I should have made a distinction between urban whites and rural whites. I live in a big city. It is not uncommon to see groups of teens of mixed race. Black kids and white kids these days hang out together, something which was rare when I was a kid in the 1960s. Rural whites, on the other hand, seem to be as prejudiced as ever, probably because here in the northern US, most minorities live in cities and few live in rural areas (unlike the southern US) and never really get to know people from other backgrounds.

Rural people from everywhere tend to be less educated and more reactionary, as a general principle. I simply wonder if you've been to rural places in majority-non-white countries.

My theory is simply that rural people and their progenitors have been doing exactly what they're doing right now for such a long time that anything different seems irrational at best and change represents to them a threat to their entire existence as they know it. The psychology of reaction, I suppose.

[Foldered]

Jezzus... I am just putting a frame of reference on my observations, so the reader knows my perspective. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
If it hurt my feelings, my response would not have been gentle (as it was). I was simply saying that by qualifying what you've said the way that you did, it proves a point.

[Klaatu]

If it hurt my feelings, my response would not have been gentle (as it was). I was simply saying that by qualifying what you've said the way that you did, it proves a point.

Fair enough. How would you have tactfully put it? My perspective, that is.

[GreenCommunism]

i think if there was overpopulation in europe or that settlers were fleeing persecution the native americans wouldn't mind , that is as long as they conquered one of the tribes territory which said tribes disliked.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It's just important to remember that enforcement should have started in 1492, with people that were actually Hispanic, instead of Indians baptized and indoctrinated as such. ;)

Well, as far as I know, time travel has not been mastered. So why don't we just deport Lou Dobbs and call it a day.

[Agnapostate]

You'll like this; the Mexica Movement cornered him and demanded to know why his ancestors didn't assimilated into indigenous society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU7bsefBAmQ

My cousin's middle name is 'Xochitl' because my aunt's a Chicana nationalist who thinks we're Aztecs even though our family's from Apache territory.

[Robocommie]

Trying to point out logical inconsistencies in their arguments is like fucking a trout - it might be fun at the time, but it's gonna be a slippery ordeal, and it's sure as hell not going to bear you any fruit.

...You're an odd duck, Kun Fana. ;)

[Gecko]

I don't doubt that for a minute. I've known native americans, blacks, hispanics, indians (india), muslims, asians, chaldeans, filipinos, africans (from nigeria) russians, polish (when it was communist) etc etc...

All have been cool with me (maybe it's just me, but...) The most hateful MFer's I've met, were "uneducated" whites! Why is this???

("educated whites" seem somewhat less prejudiced than "uneducated whites")

BTW I am an educated middle-aged white male


and i bet some of your best friends are black too...right?

[manic expression]

Why is it that people of color are always given a single, collective consciousness; while white people are free to have any opinion they wish?
That's a question I always have for the Identity Politics camp. All too often in the "privilege vs non-privilege" view of things, non-whites have the single, collective consciousness of being oppressed and whites have the single, collective consciousness of being privileged. The old equation is just turned around, not questioned.


You can try to make it more acceptable by making it a positive generalization all you want; but at the end of the day, "All Native Americans are friendly" is as fucked up as "All Native Americans are blood-thirsty killers"...
I don't agree. I think most Blacks, most Latinos, most Indians, most whites, most Desis, most Arabs, most (...) are good people when you get down to it. Friendly? Sometimes, probably depends on their mood, but good people nonetheless. I don't see how you can feasibly be a revolutionary without believing in humanity so.

And I can't think of a single Indian leader or organization that ever promoted the deportation of whites from the Americas. Not one. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that's ever been a significant demand by our Indian sisters and brothers.

By the way, the fact that initial contact with Europeans brought very varied and ambiguous reactions and consequences is ignored here, and I feel like it's expected that we all choose sides like it's some game of dodgeball. It's not like the Iroquois were totally sour about European influence when they were using gunpowder to gain a technological advantage over rival Algonquin tribes in warfare...which then forced many peoples north to desperately seek help from the French. This stuff is nuanced as hell, let's try to avoid the black-and-white as much as we can.

[Klaatu]

and i bet some of your best friends are black too...right?

So you're trying to patronize me with this worn-out cliche?

Take it at face-value, and don't try to read between the lines, Einstein