During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
These scientists were 'pseudo' only in retrospect. It literally took a world war to knock eugenicists out of the mainstream.
As we pat ourselves on the back today for being so rational and enlightened, we would do well to remember episodes like that and restore some sense of humility. The progressives of that era considered themselves no less enlightened and rational than we do ourselves.
Nowadays race more often means skin color and a deterministic culture, with the occasional addition of crude metrics such as IQ to justify preexisting biases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
Holmes is an intellectual hero of mine. I keep it as a reminder that we all have our historical blindspots.
This is well summarized by cultural theorist Slavoj Zizek; if you have Netflix then I heartily recommend watching the whole of this film there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37RLn28mrLU
Of course nobody is immune from this. I have subjective beliefs that I treat as axiomatic and I'm sure Zizek does too; it would be hard to get through the day if you weren't able to take anything for granted. But when we are engaged in philosophical thought, we should seek to minimize the axiomatic content of our argument and be clear about our reasons for designating some subjective beliefs as axiomatic. I believe strongly in a natural right of self-defense, for example. To justify this (to myself, not necessarily to anyone else), I observe that in nature, when animals or even plants are attacked and there is no possibility of evading the attack, they attempt to retaliate in some fashion in hopes of causing their antagonist to break off the attack. Of course I could be falling victim to a naturalistic fallacy here, and indeed there's a strong argument in western culture that the willing sacrifice of the individual self in pursuit of some collective good is a more effective strategy than direct confrontation; however the utilitarian argument for this course is predicated on the existence of an afterlife - if not in the sense of a physical heaven and hell, then in the sense of a collective memory of the sacrifice which informs the future behavior of the collective organism.
This too is an axiomatic belief for many people, but it in turn is subject to question; one might argue that is the death of ~6 million Jewish people during the Holocaust, most of whom went to their deaths compliantly rather than confrontationally is the largest identifiable sacrifice in accordance with a general principle of non-violence, how is it that only a few generations later anti-semitism has become fashionable once more, and there is a social contingent eager to resume such genocidal activities under the auspices of some warmed-over conjectures about racial superiority. Insofar as there's a conflict between the natural instinct to retaliate (which may or may not scale) and the social imperative to sacrifice oneself (which may or may not improve the strategic position of the embattled social group) I lean towards the natural instinct because it's the product of millions of years of evolutionary competition vs. thousands of years of social cooperation, but I feel like it would be a mistake to uncritically adopt either position as the correct one and then never question it again.
This may seem very abstract and intangible when I express it in philosophical terms, but given the high level of political polarization and the various socioeconomic and geopolitical circumstances that obtain today, we are or soon will be forced to make decisions on the basis of such fundamental beliefs and then live or die with the consequences. I claim, therefore, that an examination of our fundamental beliefs and the means by which we qualify them is a matter of grave urgency, because under sufficient stress we default to acting without thinking, and those actions are the products of the beliefs that we choose to hold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilizati...
And today, in our age of satellites and electronic computers, we have our own misconceptions - areas where nagging little doubts or details that don't quite fit the model (and are therefore trivialized or ignored outright). Examples: The unidirectional linearity of time. String Theory vs classical quantum model. Or even the "big bang" model. Our (lack of) understanding gravity and quantum entanglement.
Hopefully future generations with more understanding will look back at us, shake their heads, and ask "how could they have been so naive?"
I think the answer is, we're really not that far removed from our ancestors scratching the dirt with sticks and learning to control fire. Hopefully with continued inspection (introspection?) we get closer to the truth of science and its beauty.
This is "common knowledge about past common knowledge" which was never true, a somewhat ironic detail given your larger point.
It was common knowledge the earth was round since antiquity (as long as we've had sailors).
American and German eugenicists were in close contact with each other, especially after World War I: they were working together in international organizations, following and even reporting on developments in eugenics in each other's countries. The Germans did, in fact, borrow much of their 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Defective Offspring (the so-called 'sterilization law') from the model sterilization law drawn up for the various states by Harry H. Laughlin, Superintendent of the ERO, and a number of American eugenicists were impressed with the Nazi eugenical laws after 1933.
http://ideonexus.com/2007/12/02/the-complex-william-jennings...
In lessons learned from history, Jennings made the mistake of attacking the textbook on the validity of evolutionary theory instead of for the abhorrent promotion of eugenics. As a result, history remembers him as a buffoon rallying against a now-obvious scientific truth. I see a parallel today with many Climate Change denialists, who attack the science instead of attacking the policies being put forward using the science for support.
Well, some of that, but mostly he's remembered for being a powerful populist politician that delivered the "cross of gold" speech.
That was still pretty mainstream post-WWII in the US. And of course it's undergoing a renaissance as "race realism".
> As we pat ourselves on the back today for being so rational and enlightened, we would do well to remember episodes like that and restore some sense of humility. The progressives of that era considered themselves no less enlightened and rational than we do ourselves.
Aren't these issues exactly why modern progressives tend to be wary of cultural absolutism and monocultures?
Many young Americans are shocked to learn that Italian and Irish (who are often a baseline of appearance in modern America)were once not only considered not "white", but were demonized even as much as other races that Europe has traditionally looked down on.
This is one of the primary reasons that fascism is such an uncomfortable situation for its citizens. Fascism thrives in the face of an "enemy" that can be defeated by force and a "strong leader." These enemies will be selected by convenience, not rationality.
This was parodied in the movie Blazing Saddles, set in the American wild west, with a quote that I'd be [edit: apparently not] banned for repeating verbatim.
I sincerely hope that posting such a quote isn't cause for a ban - since it's pulled directly from the film, and does a good job of emphasizing the point you're trying to make.
Let's examine a few examples, using 'oompa-loompa' as an imaginary term of abuse. Shut up Alice, you're just an oompa-loompa! - not OK. Ignore Alice; she's a stupid oompa-loompa. - not OK. Bob denigrated Alice by referring to her as an 'oompa-loompa.' - OK.
It's not the specific words that are offensive, but the context in which they are employed. When you're reporting someone else's speech, it's OK to quote them accurately and in full - indeed I think it's often necessary. If we use euphemisms or bowdlerisms - such as saying 'the f-word' or 'f---' to avoid saying the word 'fuck' when reporting what someone said - the we are not only insulting the intelligence of our interlocutors, but we are softening the impact of the original statement. To do so out of a regard for the tender feelings of others is misplaced, because by implication we're saying that the offensive content inheres in the word rather than intention of the speaker, and the use of offensive words is easily dismissed nowadays by someone saying they 'misspoke'.
Let's take another example. Bob says to Alice: 'Your life is unimportant because you are only an oompa-loompa' in some public confrontation. Carol reports this on the evening news as 'bob said that Alice's life was not important, and employed an ethnic slur.' Technically true, but 'employed an ethnic slur' sounds pretty mild compared to the unpleasant experience of being called an oompa-loompa directly, or feeling empathy for someone subjected to such a term of abuse. By resorting to euphemism, the offensive nature of Bob's aggressive remarks towards Alice is significantly understated, which is a win for bob.
I think that when a public figure (qua someone whose utterances or actions are consequential because of their social reach) makes an offensive remarks such as 'You know what? fuck the oompa=loompas!' it should be reported verbatim on the evening news, not bleeped or euphemized. There's an argument that doing so spreads it and normalizes, it, and that is true to some extent. (There are increasingly common reports, albeit apocryphal, of school students excusing offensive or assaultive behavior by citing the President's well-documented model). But the unpleasantness of hearing that repeated and perpetuated has to be balanced against the value of people knowing exactly what was said and how it was said, so that the fact of offensive or assaultive behavior is not obscured to the end of deniability or dismissability.
Linguistic infantilization is but a prelude to cognitive manipulation, and the latter has reached pandemic proportions in an age of almost-instant global communication. The averred reluctance of some to be exposed to horrible words is really a plea not to be informed about the existence of horrible behavior, a preference for not knowing about the fact of conflict. Meaningful discourse on how we should behave is impossible if we cannot express ourselves honestly about how we do behave.
Second, it's intellectually dishonest to imply that this had anything to do with a malleable concept of race. Italy and the US were at war during WW2, and the additional scrutiny was very clearly based upon ancestral nationality, rather than ethnic, lines.
> Italian-Americans had faced prejudice for decades by the time the order was drafted, says Guglielmo. Italians were the biggest group of immigrants to the United States who passed through Ellis Island for much of the late 19th and early 20th century; between 1876 and 1930, 5 million Italians moved to the U.S. Not without backlash: By the 1920s, pseudo-scientists and polemicists in the 1920s popularized the notion that Italians were a separate race from Anglo-Americans.
It discusses "outsider" status, and WW2 represented a massive debate about who was "trustworthy." Historians have pointed out that in many cases these camp approaches were in part appeasement tactics for the rather large fascist movements growing in America. Hell, WW2 was the mark of the last unsuccessful kleptocrat-fascist coup against America lead by the leadership of Chase Manhattan bank in concert with the actual German nazis. It nearly happened, too!
"Whiteness" is A Word for it that fascists don't like, in part because it speaks to their "white homeland" ideology. I rather enjoy using it to point out the other side of what they're polishing is in fact a turd.
> Second, it's intellectually dishonest to imply that this had anything to do with a malleable concept of race. Italy and the US were at war during WW2,
AND YET! Mysteriously! Japanese were specifically targeted for the harshest treatment, Italians the second most, and the fewest German Americans ended up in concentration camps. What's more, it "wasn't about race" but the principle tie for many of these people to these camps was their heritage and if their looks conformed to a stereotype!
Like you yourself said:
> and the additional scrutiny was very clearly based upon ancestral nationality, rather than ethnic, lines.
Honestly, what the hell do YOU think this means? If someone looked the part, as defined by their "ancestral heritage" they had their property seized and their entire families put into war-crime level imprisonment.
And you're going to say, "This isn't about race, it's about ancestral heritage." This just in: That's one of the primary components of race and the racist discourse in America. How many times did we see the Trump campaign supporters point out that if only 3rd greater generation Americans voted, the RNC would win the presidency every time?
You are eager to call it "intellectually dishonest" and maybe that'll work in your christian-sponsored micro-targetted facebook ads and now-banned subreddits. For everyone not looking for an enemy to blame it's the observable and objective facts. None of the concentration camps America set up were fun places, but the ones for the least white-looking people were objectively horrifying, and the seizure of property against that class of people was much more widespread and damaging. More asian-looking people were dissipated than every other category combined.
Practically speaking, it would be difficult to round up all German-Americans and put them into concentration camps in WW2. They had basically interbred with other people with dissimilar European ancestry, did not retain any unique accent, or group themselves into ethnic communes.
Additionally, many believed that by fighting against Germany in World War 1, all German-American's had proved their loyalty beyond any more doubt.
Lastly, Germany had its greatest waves of immigration to the America's either before the US was even a nation, or during its infancy.
Italians were a 'new' wave of immigration, pushed into ghettos due to existing social bigotry, and easily differentiated from the normal phenotypic blend of older immigrant populations that became the white American norm.
----
Personally, I believe that this is better stated as ethnic discrimination. In Europe, Africa, and Asia---all 'old world' continents---there is less of a tendency to trumpet ones own race. Rather people have the view that their ethnicity is the best, their bloodline lineage is the best, their family heritage is the best. Discrimination there takes the form of Germany believing that anyone who isn't german is low-class---which includes Spaniards, Italians, British, Russians, Poles, Finns, etc.
In the US today, ethnicity has been de-emphasized with a greater focus being put on race and religion, which is to our detriment in understanding both historical treatment of immigrants, and also current day treatment of immigrants.
For example: why are so many people against Syrians, but view Saudi's as tolerable? Why is Yemen seen less favourable than Oman?
I'd love to see a source for this. My research and interviewing my relatives who were there suggested that they were quite concerned that the germans were "hard to spot".
> Italians were a 'new' wave of immigration, pushed into ghettos due to existing social bigotry, and easily differentiated from the normal phenotypic blend of older immigrant populations that became the white American norm.
I mean it wasn't _that_ new. There was a major wave of immigration in 1910.
But bigotry based on appearance is almost always the basis of this.
Were they talking about German nationals, or German-American's?
Your argument is basically that if the word doesn't appear in the original article, we should be able to hold a discussion of that concept that refers to the article. There is a lot more to reading comprehension than iterating over a bag of words to see whether they appear in a given corpus.
"Finns faced racial discrimination, with many people using the Finnish language as “proof” that Finns were not European and thus fair game to be subject to unfair treatment. Some argued that Finns were Asian, meaning they should be barred from citizenship under the Asian Exclusion Act of the early 1900s. The word “Finlander” was used as a slur, along with “China Swede” and “roundhead.”"
http://inktank.fi/china-swedes-forest-finns-and-the-great-mi...
Bonasera, the funeral director (corpse valet): I believe in America. America has made my fortune. But when Bonasera's daughter is raped, the (white, American) police did nothing. So he goes to the Godfather for justice.
There's always a distinction between white America and Michael's immigrant Italian-ness. Even the beginning of II, young Vito is an immigrant but is drawn back into his community. Always a distinction, cultural, ethnic, generational, racial.
The Godfather really is a/the great American novel.
In hindsight, I guess it's obvious that Kay doesn't look like the other women in the family. As someone who considers Italians to be "white", it never really stood out to me as notable (aside from the fact that she was unfamiliar/uncomfortable with the family business). I also never would have associated going to war or going to college as rebelling against being Italian, just seemed like a normal thing for a kid to want to do. Probably you view some of these things differently if you've read the book...
"There are many reasons for the common understanding forged by Finns and Native Americans, but above all they were united by their intimate relationship with the forest. Just like the Ojibwa Finns hunted, fished and foraged. The locals also valued Finns’ handiwork skills: the ability to build a boat or carve skis. Finns learned how to cultivate maize and use medicinal herbs, among other things. In return they lent their expertise in building log cabins and weaving shoes out of birch bark."
Where are the articles arguing that "East Asians," "Indians," "Arabs," or other racial groups are just social constructs and that these peoples consequently lack the right to control the immigration policy of their respective nation-states?
It might be worth mentioning that I regard your view of East Asian identity as extremely simplistic partly because I'm married to an Asian person and have had a disproportionately large number of friends from that region for several decades. Your homogenous characterization of the region is superficially persuasive but falls apart as soon as you look at the history of the region in any detail.
As for lacking the right to control immigration policy (a subject that was not in discussion but which is clearly what you want to express your views about, arguments against the restrictive immigration policy that obtains in the various East Asian countries are made all the time - not on the basis of those people lacking rights of self-determination but on the basis of economic utility. Finally, you overlook the fact that the the US (where I suspect you are based and whose immigration policy you're indirectly commenting on) was, unlike the East Asian countries you mention, explicitly founded on inclusive liberal ideas (as exemplified in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) rather than on an ethnic nationalist identity and that it's not unreasonable to evaluate US policy in the light of the assertions upon which it is nominally founded.
You're right that those are all equally social constructs. Same with Arabs, that's a massive group.
When someone is discriminated against with a broad brush their list of qualifications for "an ally" is often the other people equally maligned in that group, so if "Arabs" as a group talk back to discrimination against "Arabs" then that's an unsurprising development.
Established groups feared new groups. But in the end, these people generally brought new innovations and economic growth and interesting new foods.
They mashed new cultures with old - not without pain - and eventually gave us General Tso's Chicken.
In other words, it's gonna be alright.
^^ this is what I tell people who support Muslim bans. I'm not sure if it helps them, but it helps me.
That said, there is no need to only have one argument, they can both stand together.
As best I can tell, we have no moral obligation to let every person into the United States, but we have an economically-sound reason for accepting a steady stream of new folks.
Really thoughtful comment though, thanks.
This doesn't make it okay, of course. This means we need to be that much more conscious of it, and take active steps to mitigate the effects of racism. (This is the distinction between "I'm not a racist" and anti-racism, btw)
In the long run, sure. But in the short run, were there Irish gangs, German mafia &c.? Were those forms of criminality different from the forms prevalent amonst ethnic-English Americans of the same time period? I honestly don't know.
What sort of social upheaval and strife occurred along the way to assimilation? In the long run, things might be okay, but how much pain will there be along the way?
Criminality us a result of being marginalized from society and not being able to work "honest" livings. You are forced to rely on your own group, pushed to the edges and fighting for its own.
Bill loved his country so much that when he failed the physical for the OSS - already an army captain - by being legally blind in one eye, he lied and cheated his way into a formal position helping the British train resistance fighters in Europe. He was just as conniving when he convinced his superiors to give him a mission to parachute behind enemy lines and lead a unit of French resistance fighters.
He made a career with the CIA. Even in the letter he gave me when I was born (he died before I met him), he described in great detail need to be fit in mind and body to serve your country.
He's buried in Arlington. So much for a threat to homeland security.
If anyone is interested, he documented his experiences of WWII in an exciting book, "The OSS and I." It's hard not to enjoy a book with a chapter titled: "How to blow up a bridge."
Where does your mother live?
What's your favorite [sports] team?
But is it also the goal to attempt to justify the current immigration ban by citing history? Conway brought up the Obama's tightening of the Iraqi immigration during his term. Does that somehow justify Trump's immigration ban?
I guess you can say she is just pointing out the media hypocrisy in being less judgmental with Obama than with Trump and that may be fair. But ultimately it is just a distraction in some sense. I fear Trump's camp is sticking to the "the media is hypocritical" campaign as a distraction. I guess it's a clever way to use the free bad press.
I find it interesting how we see this kind of "news" (reports?) in opposite ways.
I see it as a message of "We've done this before - and it was wrong then too! We often talked about how bad and stupid it was we did it at all, yet we're coming full circle."
Because I see the media as being largely left-biased, I see these reports as an attempt to remind or educate people on our history. Not supportive of the actions but critical of them. Meanwhile, I see right-leaning media as being more supportive of the actions and less critical (because they largely are...)
No, none of the articles I've read describe the past historical incidents in a positive light. They're attempting to compare modern actions (discriminating against Muslims) with past actions (discriminating against Italians, or Japanese, or women, or African-Americans). Similar comparisons are made between the Prohibition (of alcohol) and the War on Drugs.
The historical incidents are widely and easily recognized to be wrong because we're emotionally distant from them. People should be able to learn from history and realize that analogous actions today are similarly wrong.
-- No it doesn't What Trump did is not just stop immigration, but completely stop even people with valid visas, and green cards (Permanent Residents) from even entering. This is unheard off. Some of them were "detained", put with handcuffed for over 20 hrs.
In the midst of it there were a 5 yo, grandmas, and folks that worked for the US government, and served this country.
Completely different than just slowing down/stopping refugees coming in. The executive order was cruel and poorly implemented, (and parts of it most likely illegal).
I have travel coming up in two months, this makes me nervous.
Do you have a source for this by any chance?
If your a former Prime Minister of an allied nation, you'll probably only be detained an hour[0].
Otherwise your mileage may vary[1]. Your local authorities can probably give you some guidance on this.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/0...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travele...
This is the problem with giving wide latitude to a trusted administration - it doesn't stop there.
I had a colleague on H1b who was sent home because his port of new york when his place of employment was houston. He was going to visit his sister there before flying to houston.
This is not a rare exception. There were many, many cases like this in 2009.
Sudanese student at Stanford detained, handcuffed at JFK airport
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/28/stanford-university-st...
She claimed that customs officials appeared confused and were apologetic to the detained travelers. One of them told her: “I have to do this.”
I have seen a lot of cries of hypocrisy, involving Obama's Iraq action you mention, and other things like drone strikes. It's a bit silly, since Obama did get a lot of criticism for this stuff, so the only argument for hypocrisy is that he should have had more. It's not something where a group was totally for X in one case, and totally against it in another case.
Anyway, if someone thinks this stuff is good, they should be able to make the case for it directly. They especially shouldn't be leaning on Obama's actions to justify it when their candidate's platform largely boiled down to "I am the opposite of Obama."
That's a fair point, right? People weren't skipping work and class to march in the town square when Obama bombed Yemen and other countries, but they'll do it when Trump makes a (insensitive, idiotic, broken, heavy-handed, unjust) change to the visa process?
Some have used this argument to defend Trump's actions. It doesn't work for that at all. "You didn't protest sufficiently about Obama, so you should approve of Trump's policies" is just a non sequitur.
Some have used this argument to say that we should have protested more about these other things. That argument works, but it's not actionable unless someone invents a time machine (and we'd have to go back and assassinate Hitler first anyway).
The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future, which is great, but I don't know that I've seen anyone make it.
The argument is that the current reaction doesn't make sense given recent history. So the current "debate" is instead a placeholder for a culture war, disappointment with the election results, or something.
That is, the non sequitur is the new levels of disgust. The non sequitur is resolved if you add some subtext that make Obama deserve a (perhaps begrudging) pass and Trump a fail.
> That argument works, but it's not actionable...
Sure it's actionable. Politicians apologize for letting Obama get a pass. Some writers rip Obama a new one in ex post facto editorials. Propose laws to make sure president's can't bomb countries without Congressional approval. Propose laws giving Congress more oversight into the visa process, etc. Shoot, propose Constitutional Amendments if the rights of foreign nationals aren't clear enough.
> The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future
Honestly, being heard isn't the problem. Trump supporters know what others think. Corporate America literally has TV specials, policies, and training courses about this stuff. The people with different concerns are just on different wavelengths, so there's no conversation, just a big struggle over the reigns of power.
We need to actually understand others' arguments (so we can in turn be better understood) instead of wondering if we need to do a better job of making themselves heard.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-inte...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Muslim_Percen...
And we have over 3 million Muslims in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States
People seem to label everything in politics with a positive or negative name, depending on their beliefs.
The left and right are so noisy with their claims, I'm having a hard time filtering through all the noise. If we could use a little math in our labeling, we wouldn't get an equality on the ban being for "Muslims". Perhaps we could have our Deep Learning machines come up with Classification names.
Which is why it's critical to oppose these horrible ideas when they are still in their early, tentative steps. Once they pick up momentum, they are much harder to stop.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
[1]"Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...
1. too many terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been committed by people born overseas
2. many come from certain "bad actor" or otherwise dysfunctional countries; that they are majority-Muslim is true but it's an incidental fact, not the reason, which is international terrorism
3. the visa vetting process is therefore dysfunctional
4. so the U.S. should pause the visa process for countries referenced in point 2 until point 3 is resolved; it's better to be safe than sorry with respect to point 1
It's my understanding that the comparison to Obama is to support that point 2 isn't about being racist but about practical national security concerns that Obama shared. The difference with Obama's policy is a difference in the degree of concern, not type of concern. That is, if Trump is really racist here, then Obama's at least a little racist, which doesn't seem to be the contention of most people appalled by this executive order.
...that's my understanding of the thought process translated into HN-friendly lingo, anyway.
(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...)
"We unambiguously won WWII. Back then the 'greatest generation' knew what was needed to win a war, and wasn't squeemish about doing what needed to be done. WWII was the last major war we actually won. Since then we have become too politically correct to actually win wars. Trump will change that. We will win again."
My German-born great-grandparents were not molested by the government during WW I, though there was harassment of Germans and German-speakers. And in WW II the US had admirals and generals with names like Nimitz, Eisenhower, Eichelberger, Gerow.
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/29/randazza-what-shall-we-do...
When we observe that Italians were feared as enemy aliens in the early 20th century, we mean it literally: Sacco and Venzetti were "anarchists", but "anarchist" was the term used at the time for "terrorist".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Technically not a lynching I suppose, but as far as mass killings of minorities go..
In any case, it just goes to show that many groups have been 'the other' that people blame for problems.
They were, of course, guilty — as their lawyer later told Upton Sinclair.
And just for spice, so we remember this stuff is in living memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5of8na/if_th...
Having a guilty and irrational fear of some group, whatever the group, seems almost part of american identity. I cannot think of any period of american history that wasnt steeped in such fears.
Perhaps the post-apollo 70s? Americans then feared nuclear war generally, but not russians as a people. Racism was a thing internally, but i cannot think of an especially hated outside group.
That is, it's clear to me that people calling this "racist" might even be correct, but it may not matter if it seems like they're calling middle America racist. That looks a lot like being understanding towards Iraqis ("I know you're not all terrorists") while being bigoted towards Americans ("You're clearly all racist!"). Anyway, once that meme (doesn't really like Americans) is implanted, then Trump takes a hit today but get some "marketing" wins in the long run when it comes to other issues coming up (Supreme Court appointments, ACA changes, etc.)
it may not matter if it seems like they're calling middle America racist
It's true that promoting such a perception would benefit the Trump administration, but as I always say to people seeking to capture some ideological territory, 'you don't speak for the American people.' At present the administration is rather overdrawn at the credibility bank.
You can refute all you want. I'm talking about real conversations I've had with real people. It looks like some Americans are hateful towards "hateful" Americans and it puts people on the defensive and pushes them away.
EDIT:
> you don't speak for the American people
Right. That's not the message that people are getting. There are lines being drawn and many decent people feel like they're being hated along with neo-nazis. That sort of visceral feeling is hard to shake off when you want to later appeal to their sense of decency when health insurance rules are being reconsidered.
I think a lot of other people who are for the ban aren't racist, just misinformed. A lot seem to think Muslim immigrant|refugee == terrorist.
One person told me "I'm for the ban because I don't want them to come and kill me and my family in our sleep."
I blame this perception on the people who seek to profit by the general hysteria, not those manipulated by it. I am sad for the victims of it.
> A lot seem to think Muslim immigrant|refugee == terrorist.
Some do. But some people think the U.S. never landed on the moon. That is, just like not every Muslim is a terrorist, not every person who wants change in our visa laws wants to introduce internment camps, etc.
It's fair to think the due diligence done in admitting foreign nationals has been lacking. I think this particular approach is heavy-handed and inhumane, but we're not arguing for a more humane alternative... actually, I'm not sure what we're arguing about other than people are mad and think things are really racist right now.
> I'm for the ban because I don't want them to come and kill me and my family in our sleep.
So maybe you heard "Muslims are clearly dangerous" when they meant "my government's job is to protect my family and waiting until people are dead is too late". And even if they think Muslims are more dangerous, the right response is to, empathetically, discuss facts (statistics, counterfactuals) with them. The goal is to appeal to their better nature, not to make them lose so we win. All the left-wing apoplexy and panic these days is actively harmful from that perspective.
> I blame this perception on the people who seek to profit by the general hysteria, not those manipulated by it. I am sad for the victims of it.
Me too. I think the misconceptions about Trump-voting America is the another instance of the same phenomenon. And it's no less harmful, in my mind.
It's fair to think the due diligence done in admitting foreign nationals has been lacking.
It really isn't. It takes a huge amount of vetting for a refugee to given permission to enter the USA. It's fairly easy to enter the country if you're a citizen of the EU or Japan or Canada or Australia (all of which have a good deal of socioeconomic common ground with the USA) but overall it's difficult. Visas are simply not handed out like cookies.
Some immigrants have subsequently committed crimes or even acts of terrorism within the US. but the incidence is significantly lower than that of natural-born American citizens. None of the available evidence supports the claim that there is some sort of security crisis requiring the imposition of drastic measures.
the right response is to, empathetically, discuss facts (statistics, counterfactuals) with them. The goal is to appeal to their better nature, not to make them lose so we win
I wholly agree and practice this diligently, but at some point the responsibility falls upon the listener to evaluate the information that has been provided to them and make a decision. If they just can't make up their mind for whatever reason, then chances are they'll never be politically active and investing more effort in persuading them is not an effective use of my time. If they endlessly pose counterarguments and excuses, then after a while I start to they're either arguing in bad faith or they have an position that they can't defend but don't want to give up, and it's likewise a waste of my time.
Lest this seem dismissive I'd like to point that I've been discussing politics civilly as an adult for maybe 25 years now, so if I give up on trying to persuade someone it's not from an inability to articulate an argument or an unwillingness to entertain opposing points of view.
Me too. I think the misconceptions about Trump-voting America is the another instance of the same phenomenon. And it's no less harmful, in my mind.
Get back to me when people being shot for supporting Trump without really believing in much of anything is a regular (or even an occasional) occurrence. By contrast I can point to a significant and growing death toll for acts of terrorism carried out by members of the far-right.
There are lines being drawn and many decent people feel like they're being hated along with neo-nazis.
No doubt, but insofar as they choose not to acknowledge the existence of neo-nazis in the face of abundant evidence or the threat such neo-nazis pose towards people they don't like, then it's not surprising that people who feel threatened by neo-nazis are going to feel similarly annoyed with those who enable them.
To my mind, this is similar to someone in the Confederacy saying that slavery wasn't a big issue because they didn't personally own any slaves. While that would certainly make them less culpable than someone who did own slaves, declining to acknowledge the contentious nature of slavery isn't a neutral stance, but rather one of indifference to the plight of the enslaved.
And when a new "enemy" arrives that's more appealing than the old "enemy" we reclassify the old "enemy" to be on "our side" (i.e. Greeks, Italians, etc used to be considered non-white).
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to omit the fact that both Iraq and Syria have areas experiencing active warfare? The bombing campaign is not occurring in a vacuum, is targeted at people engaged in warfare against us or our allies, and those conflicts have killed far more people than just the bombing campaign - including via the use of chemical weapons.
I'm not trying to justify civilian casualties, the ongoing drone attacks on multiple continents, or even answer whether we should be involved in these conflicts - I just think the situation is more nuanced than "the US has bombed/killed 50,000 people in Syria and Iraq".
But what you seem to ignore is that the active warfare in both countries was caused by us. And in Libya too.
Think about that. Those countries are now a mess because of "regime change".
Even outside of internal pressures, geopolitics are at play as well - Iran and Russia are playing "the great game" as much as the US/NATO are in the fight against terrorism.
The demonstrations in Syria were not spontaneous. They were engineered. If you have time, read the email exchanges between the US ambassador to Syria and H. Clinton.
Regarding Iran and Russia playing "the great game", they're supporting the legitimate govt of that country. Without their support, Assad would have been dead years ago, and Syria would have been in worse shape than it is now.
You might start by reading https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
Edit: Added WikiLeaks links
Iran is definitely playing geopolitics when they arm Houthis (fighting the internationally recognized government) with anti ship missiles in the Strait of Hormuz. Were they also not arming the Iraqi insurgents/sending military forces over the border during the height of the conflict in Iraq? How about Russia in Ukraine (are the "little green men" freedom fighters or rebels?)? Russia has more than just the support of a government in mind when it supports Syria.
I'm not saying one side is right or wrong - just that none of these actions happen in a vacuum.
And you're correct, because they don't.
My original point in all of this is that we're creating a refugees crisis, but refusing to take them in. That, in my opinion, is just evil.
It's all geopolitics...
http://wikileaks.cabledrum.net/cable/2006/12/06DAMASCUS5399....
We basically took the most and arguably the most prosperous country in Africa (Libya) and ruined it. Now we're refusing to take in those fleeing from our mess. We did the same thing in Iraq and Syria.
But it seems we're not done yet. Iran is next.
Bit is anybody protesting war against countries that can do us no harm? Nah! It makes for good war video games and Hollywood war movies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Vincent_Chin
(Since the first paragraph doesn't spell this out, Vincent's murderers thought he was Japanese.)
There have literally been a rash of terrorist attacks in Europe perpetrated by radicalized Syrians, Somalians, and Iranians. Not to mention the knife attack from Somalian refugee (who was getting a free ride) at Ohio State.
Read through these lists and tell me there is nothing to be worried about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in...
Yes, being a victim of a terrorist attack is as likely as getting hit by lightning but that doesn't mean you should wrap yourself in aluminum foil and go outside in a thunderstorm. You usually protect yourself and take shelter.
Its ok to protect yourself when there is a conceivable threat.
That being said, I do feel the travel ban was hastily rolled out without much coordination and caused some people to be detained that shouldn't have been but to completely disregard the principle of it as misguided or racist in some way is just disregarding the truth of the state of world.
In fact, many pundits are saying this going to create more propaganda or create more terrorists.
First, I disagree with notion that we should care about ISIS's propaganda. People don't become terrorists because a country bans them. They become terrorists when foreign power drops bombs and puts boots on the ground in a country they feel is theirs. Others become terrorists because they are forced to or naive minded people looking for some purpose in life.
If all we care about is their propaganda we will be frozen to inaction because anything you do can be spun against you.
Furthermore, the things ISIS hates the most is the cultural imperialism imposed on them. They don't like western values and don't want to adopt any western ideas since they are a threat to the foundations of their belief system. A threat they are willing to kill for. So really you are damned if you do and damned if you don't with ISIS. It's an ugly and complicated mess and comparing to Italians or Japanese is a gross oversimplification.
The number of terrorists that the travel ban would have stopped is at best in the low single digits. It is not at all clear that the number will exceed the number of people in the US who will become radicalized due to this policy (which I would also estimate at low single digits).
That being said, your argument is intellectually deceiving. Toddlers neither carry out acts of terrorism, neither they kill or hurt in the name of any ideology.
Terrorism by definition means to terrorise the population, not kill the greatest amount of people. Besides that, when you carry out a terrorist act in the name of some ideology, be that radical islam, white supremacy, national separatism, etc., society is called not to act upon the results of your actions but on the ideology committing the terrorist act itself. The answer to why toddlers accidentally kill people with guns is easy: they have guns available and they aren't old enough to understand what they are doing. But the answer to why do radical islamists or white supremacists kill people is all but simple.
Also as a final thought. Even inside terrorism there are degrees on morality. Sure it's bad to carry out terrorism even in the name of national identity and freedom (i.e. IRA, ETA), but at least you have a clear message on what are the terrorists' demands and how to stop it. Radical Islam (and others) don't even have these demands - unless the submission of all the western world to radical islam can be considered a valid demand.
1. Toddlers and cows and staplers do not have the potential to destroy Midtown Manhattan. This is a different category of threat entirely.
2. We aren't robots. We're humans who have evolved in a particular set of environments and contexts to be more scared of some things than others. It's perfectly rational to try to reduce the chance of harm from certain classes of things that we happen to fear more, even if those things aren't the most harmful over all. Fear matters. Reducing fear matters. Because we're people.
You seem to think this is evidence that people just need to be educated about the relative risks. But I think it's evidence of something much deeper in the species.
But that's not the argument.
The argument is about if the policy put forth by Trump&Co make sense given the data. To ONLY part of the data for policy decisions makes no sense.
Consider this:
Immigrants and refugees commit crimes at lower rates than others. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/us-record-shows-refugees... https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-sa...
Comparatively, what is the threat of terrorism: http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrori...
I cannot speak to the vetting process for allowing refugees into European countries, however the current vetting process is a lengthy 1 1/2 - 2 year process. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infogra...
Do our policies make sense: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/tr...