Hacker News Reader

Comment by darawk | Hacker News Reader

That's certainly an opinion. I figure you'd have no trouble integrating into the local culture and customs of the tribes of Papua New Guinea, then?

View on HN

Not being nationalist or getting rid of all nations borders does not exclusively lead to you being forced to integrate into New Guinean Culture.

Just because we don't do this nationalized small-minded shit we do right now, doesn't automatically mean we get rid of all roots, cultures, ideas, fears, wishes etc. of each "nation", "culture", whatever.

Did you read the comment I was responding to? It sad "the idea of nationality is silly". Your response to me is a non-sequitur.

Culture and nationality are not synonyms. In fact most countries have multiple cultures. Especially the US as a country of immigrants. Saying the idea of nationality is silly, isn't the same as saying culture is silly.

Edit: changed "nationalism" for "nationality".

Especially the US as a country of immigrants

It is a country of immigrants with a diverse array of cultures. But culture and nation are not independent. There is a core set of principles and institutions that make the US a nation: the constitution, the bill of rights, representative democracy, separation of church and state, and so on. They are part of the culture of the US.

However diverse the communities that live in the US are, they have to support the core ideas that make the US a nation. There are people in the world who do not support those ideas. It would be foolish to have too many of them within US borders.

How, exactly, do Native American reservations and tribal sovereignty fit into your argument? Should they be 'deported' because they don't adhere to all of the core principles of the US?

It seems perverse to think of Native Americans as immigrants and a little prejudiced to assume they are opposed to representative democracy.

To break things down step by step: You said and I will quote:

> However diverse the communities that live in the US are, they have to support the core ideas that make the US a nation. There are people in the world who do not support those ideas. It would be foolish to have too many of them within US borders.

I pointed out that many Native American tribes do not adhere or support many of the core ideals that make the US a nation, particularly considering the US as a nation was founded upon their bodies. You said it was foolish to have too many of those kind of people within the US border. Your argument essentially advocates for their removal.

So should they be 'deported'?

I too will break this down into little chunks.

1) The context of this discussion is immigration. 2) Native Americans are not non-citizen immigrants. They are US citizens. 3) Native Americans should not be deported for failing to support the core ideals of the US.

This seems to me entirely obvious, but I'm happy to make it explicit. You have already alluded to the solution to Native American populations who do not support the US's core ideals: sovereign reservations.

That's not how I interpreted his post. Not sure why you did.

I'll explain why I interpreted it that way. The conversation is about the deportation of immigrants. What I said was said in that context. The reply to my comment was therefore either about immigration or irrelevant to the topic at hand. Grice's Maxim of Relevance tells us to interpret contributions to conversations as attempts at relevance, so I did.

(In reality, I realized that bringing Native Americans into a discussion about immigration and deportation was an attempt to confuse the issues. That annoyed me so I decided to reply as if the commenter wasn't deliberately missing the point).

Though the discussion had long shifted to nationality and culture and was only slightly related to immigration at that point.

Wtf did forced integration come from? There’s cultural variation everywhere and it rarely corresponds with political borders (or happens as a consequence of it I suppose).

Who said anything about forced integration? You suggested the idea of nationality was silly. If the idea of nationality has no salience, then there is no meaning to national identity and therefore integrating yourself into any other human civilization should be completely seamless.

>therefore

Not really. In a whole number of ways. I actually have no idea how you can say this with any honesty.

I mean, are you really arguing that national identity is the major stumbling block in integrating to a tribe in Papua New Guinea.... Here's a hint: Other :tribes: would have difficulty integrating, and they've likely never been introduced to the concept.

Please explain to me how you're so confident while simultaneously so widely and clearly wrong.

If we use the reverse of your logic, then being a national of X country means you should be able to integrate within any subcultures within that nation entirely seamlessly.

For example, you should be able to walk into any Native American tribe and be able to seamlessly integrate yourself into their culture despite having zero background.

I think you had a good point with your first sentence.

It's always good to be aware that people have different opinions and views on certain things.

And I suppose any American should have no trouble integrating into the religious deep south culture?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com