I have understood that the bronze age collapse was a climate fluke that resulted into famine, which did lead to military power balance change which did lead into trade route collapse.
We don't know much about what happened back then. Excavations can show you that palaces were abandoned, but there is an enormous dearth of written records which would help with understanding what happened.
In absence of such records, people of today will project their most favorite contemporary theory onto the ruins. On the right, I have certainly heard the idea that both the Bronze Age Collapse and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire were caused by too much immigration. On the left, climate is the word of the decade.
(From a slightly more serious angle: the Nika Rebellion in 6th century Constantinople is a fascinating piece of history, chariot racing intertwined with politics etc. Imagine if baseball or hockey teams had their political parties or vice versa.)
Didn't realize the 'right' had even managed to co-opt something like Bronze Age Collapse to promote anti-immigration. Since isn't a lot of studying history, about tracking 'immigration', the movement of peoples. People move around. It isn't bad, it is what actually happens.
What would the world look like if during all of history, there was never any immigration? Wouldn't humans have died out.
"If only they had built a wall to keep out those 'sea peoples', then today we would be living as good and just Hattusas".
If it hadn't happened, would there even be a Jesus? or Christianity?
How these arguments go is, I find a quote, then you say "not that person", or "that isn't what they meant", or "the law is wrong, it should be illegal".
If 'valid immigration' is a-ok, then why produce so much false information re-casting it as 'illegal' in order to advocate stopping immigration?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/11/ron-desant...
What is the goal of drumming up hate using false data, to rile up his followers? Is it really to promote 'valid' immigration? Wouldn't it be better to discuss 'valid' immigration, if that was in fact the goal?
I think you have swallowed their dog whistle.
“The only thing that we are not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border—because, of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder,” the Republican governor told former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch on her radio show last week. (Check it out at the 11:45 mark.)
“I can’t believe I have to say ‘murdering people is unacceptable,'” wrote Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) in a post on X. “It’s language like yours that left 23 people dead and 22 others injured in El Paso,” she added, referring to the 2019 mass shooting in a Texas Walmart by an anti-immigrant killer.
I feel you cannot separate the two concepts. It is possible to support legal immigration but not illegal immigration, and remarks made against illegal immigrants cannot be used as evidence of any feelings towards legal immigrants. The two are, in every sense of the term, entirely disjoint sets.
If today, Republicans are against the number and type of immigrants that are allowed in under the current law, then they can change the law. They do not agree with current law, and feel that there are situations that should be illegal. So they want to change the law, thus changing what is legal now, to become illegal. So, 'calling todays legal immigration, illegal'.
I hate falling back on tropes, but this is the type of 'legal' maneuvering that was done in Germany. A lot of persecution was 'legal', once the laws were changed to make some 'people' illegal.
https://theconversation.com/republicans-are-pushing-for-dras...
""The Republicans’ plan is similar to both a similar rule that the Department of Homeland Security adopted in 2019 and a policy that President Joe Biden is trying to push through.
I am an immigration professor and teach asylum law. I believe it’s important to understand what sets Republicans’ proposed law apart from previous iterations.
The president cannot change the law, but Congress can. If these lawmakers succeed in changing federal asylum law, the law would override the court decisions striking down previous versions. Because Congress has broad power over immigration, the new laws would likely be upheld if challenged in court. ""
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/whats-...
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-05-republicans-immigra...
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1218935981/republican-candida...
Dream up crazy situations, be intolerant, get everyone riled up and ready to riot and burn the constitution.
Then turn around and be "well, indubitably, my dear chap, lets discuss the matter". Then dance around in circles because they don't actually want anything solved, because then they wont have any issues to get their base angry.
Then anybody that tries to engage with them starts looking just as crazy. Seriously, these tactics are strait verbatim out of mein kampf.
I fell for it again, getting pulled into a seemingly innocent exchange, and it really is just trolling. You haven't provided any argument either way, just questions, to make me run around.
Now I’m left to wonder why you made the claim in the first place, given you have no proof. Were you simply repeating what some liberal media narrative said the “big bad right” was plotting, without having attempted to find any proof of it until now?
You: ""My argument is that there does not exist a public official pushing for any sort of “zero-tolerance” of any legal immigration.""
I never said anything like that. I had to go back and re-read to figure out what argument you were talking about.
You kind of fantasized something I said, and all subsequent arguments didn't really make sense since I was never trying to prove that. I made a comment about 'sea peoples' in the bronze age. To then try and infer some stance on very specific legal standing today seems a stretch.
So to me, it seemed kind of crazy that someone is claiming the 'right' doesn't have some pretty radical views on immigration.
But yes, I do agree, the right is pretty awful. I don't need any media to tell me that, when I have my own eyes.
Get out of the bubble, I flip channels to conservative media now and then to see what they are being told, and it is full of lies. Like really blatant lies someone could debunk just by looking up the truth if they wanted to.
> [America is a country] where so many of these absolutely rotten-brained zero tolerance takes on immigration become popular.
Can you explain what you mean by that? Because it sounds to me like you believe there’s some sort of zero tolerance immigration policy that is popular in America, but you haven’t been able to produce evidence of it so far.
As for the left leaning and right leaning media, they both lie. And I was right there with you believing the left’s over the right’s up until 2020. Since then I don’t lean one way or the other, but I do demand every claim be accompanied with concrete evidence. This is the only way to find truth.
I didn't say that. It was someone else that replied first, and then you and I started replying to that reply. But I hadn't been directly arguing that persons post.
So guess we got off-track at the beginning.
Though, given that the Governor of Texas, someone that is significant in the republican party, has advocated shooting immigrants. I'm not sure the sentiment is wrong.
I also agree Left and Right Media, both 'skew' what they say. I find the left has less outright blatant lies. They certainly 'frame' what they say. The Left will be very careful in what words they choose. The right will actually just say 2+2=5, and trust nobody checks.
And you’re back to conflating illegal and legal immigration. I’ve never argued nobody is against illegal immigration, far from it.
To your point about media lies, the Left’s are less obvious yes, but that makes them much tricker to deal with. The Left will first convince you 3 and 4 are effectively the same, tell you 2+2 is pretty much 3, then have you laugh at the Right for being so far off base from reality when they say it’s 5. You can show someone on the Right a calculator and they’ll see they were mistaken, you show someone on the Left the calculator and they’ll tell you you’re in the wrong for thinking the difference between the answers matters. See: legal vs illegal immigration, “The Science” of COVID, approaches to crime, etc.
There was no legal/illegal basis for settling the Americas. There was no world court where Columbus could be charged with illegal immigration.
I do strongly disagree with your take on left/right reactions to media.
Typically those on the right subscribe to a more 'religious fundamentalism', and thus notions of right/wrong, true/false, are not based on any scientific findings. It is based on faith, a moral right granted by God to his chosen. So there is no arguing. No room for truth.
Hence, the truth can be spelled out clearly, and they will still not accept it. They will argue the sky isn't blue, if their leaders tell them it isn't. Religion has morphed the brain to the extent that reason is not allowed.
See: legal vs illegal immigration, “The Science” of COVID, approaches to crime, etc. Vaccinations, life, etc...
This isn’t the place to keep going on the topic, but feel free to reach out “my username at outlook dot com” if you’d like to discuss further.
But also, morality shouldn't over-rule science. If there is a hypothesis, and it can be tested, so you know what is true, then a religious belief shouldn't make you ignore it. The 'right' these days is anti-science to the extent that they are rejecting things that can be tested and shown to be true. Rejecting things that can be proven.
Agree, probably enough on this thread.
Later, bye, best of luck.
Probably wont e-mail, because I'm paranoid about anonymity.
So this makes plausible that the abandoning was not something voluntary.