Very enjoyable article on the Minutemen by Weekly Standard's Matt Labash. Labash likes making fun of his interview subjects, but you can tell he admires these guys a little bit.
I tend not to want to pay a lot of attention to immigration for fear of being labeled a racist, but the leader of the Minutemen doesn't have that problem. His son is bi-racial (half white/half African-American).
This article will stir you up and make you wonder why we aren't working harder on the border issue.
16 comments:
Just stirred? Not shaken?
I find the idea that someone who's son is bi-racial can't be racist ridiculous on its face. Racism takes many forms. For example, you can be perfectly egalitarian towards people born in your country and antipathic towards immigrants. That is, in itself, a form of racism.
Racism is not "black or white."
Am I missing something here? Is it possible to have a bi-racial child without either loving a person of another race or adopting, as our friend Dr. Carson has nobly done?
(Incidentally, I use the word 'race' only as a designation of convenience within the context of judging whether a person has prejudices against people with different pigmentation. Anyone who believes in the truth of the Bible knows that there is no such thing as race, only family. We are all descended from one man.)
And I must say I'm shocked that Mr. Elliott discriminates against ideas with ridiculous faces...!
He's not just the leader. He founded the group, T-man. Read the profile by Labash. Weekly Standard is a neo-con rag. If there was a racist undercurrent here, they'd exploit it to make the paleos look bad.
And don't forget to visit my Pamela Anderson shrine, itspamblog.com. Oy!
Sweet monkey dung! Spam is more insidious than Republicanism!
But back to the "conversation" at hand. I see that you don't understand what I've said at all. I was taking umbrage to an intellectual facet of what Hunter wrote. I have no knowledge of Mr. Labash, nor his personal feelings. I am not casting any aspersions on he or the Minutemen group. They, at least, know where they stand on illegal immigration, while I do not, so that gives them one up on me on this issue.
Racism (and any other -ism, really) is about dynamics of power and status. It is not as simple as "I hate all non-(fill in skin color/ethnic background here)." It is entirely possible for someone to be a racist and, say, have racist attitudes towards some groups and not others. Racism is as complex an issue as any, and should not be treated in a facile fashion.
Quite sure that's true, James, but it is probably also fair to say that if one is not single race-centric, then one is also more likely to embrace all races. That's why I pointed out the gentleman's family composition. He is, at a minimum, not a white supremacist.
Like I said, I have no opinion one way or another about Labash. However, you can't deny that some white supremacists have embraced the Minutemen movement as their own.
Yes, James, and per Mr. Karnick's note on the abortion of healthy fetuses with a slim chance of curable retinoblastoma, those of the modernist utilitarian bent have unquestionably embraced eugenics, which was not accidental to, but was the core of Hitler's political philosophy.
Rock on.
Eugenics by personal choice! Yeah, go abortion!!!
Man, the racism thread was so promising. Then you gotta bring in a non sequitur like eugenics. You really feel like abortion is the one thing you can hammer us with, isn't it? It's the only possible explanation for why you ALWAYS bring it up.
I dunno, T, as a former special education teacher, I have to say that I can't decide where to fall on the idea of abortion just to avoid having a child with Down's Syndrome or another detectable abnormality. On the one hand, I know that all of these kids are just as vital and wonderful as any child. On the other, I do see the hardships they and their families endure. It's not an easy issue to decide.
Ah, it always comes back to the Pilate Syndrome. It's somebody else's lookout.
James, do I always bring it up? Regardless, in this case, I was using it only in the abstract.
That white supremacists are anti-immigrant (one would think toward legals and illegals) isn't really the point. Is it possible to be a Minuteman or sympathetic to them without being racist? That is the only significant question.
(Is it possible to be a eugenicist without sharing Hitler's nihilism? I would answer they are philosophically the same, but that is another question also.)
Again, you indulge in the typical conservative "black or white," "one answer fits all" line of thought. My point was that it is possible to be a racist towards some ethnicities and not all. That was my point. I would agree that it is possible to be anti-immigrant (illegal, legal, both) and not racist. And I would even agree that calling someone who is opposed to one or both forms of immigration a racist is often used as an easy out.
I would also disagree that eugenics and nihilism go hand in hand, but as you said, it's another discussion.
T-man, I've proved it. It's in a long article (about 18,000 words) you can find via Lexis-Nexis law review database. Go read it sometime.
Post a Comment