Roger Ebert has roused the ire of the teabaggers, which is actually pretty easy to do. The occasion was a news story about a group of five privileged white kids who decided to flaunt American flags on their apparel on Cinco de Mayo, and who were sent home from school. Ebert made this comment:
Kids who wear American Flag t-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July.
This prompted a series of comments from right-wingers, gloating over his disfigurement and prospects of his death. They are such a classy bunch.
In contrast, Ebert did post a classy response, explaining that the students were being deliberately provocative and offensive, and deserve the kind of rebuke he suggested.
I agree. As a certifiable expert in being provocative and offensive, I think my reaction has a special authority to it, too. I differ with how the school authorities handled it, though, and in particular, we're chastising the students for the wrong thing. They were offensive, all right, but there are good reasons to be offensive; what seems to be ignored by everyone is that those all-American boys were also craven little cowards.
For instance, I own this nice t-shirt.
Now, if I put my "Arrest the Pope" shirt on and walked down the street to the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and attended Sunday Mass, I would be acting like a jerk, attempting to irritate the church attendees just because I felt like being jerkish. I might have a serious message — the Catholic hierarchy has become an immoral defender of child rape — but that doesn't mean I should hammer every Catholic in my town with that message all the time, especially not when they are engaging in activities that have nothing to do with pedophilia, no matter how silly they are.
Provocateur that I am, I wouldn't do that. It makes the message simply random and made with the sole intent of being rude.
On the other hand, if there were a public rally in town to proclaim the innocence of the church in all these scandals, well, then I would intentionally put the shirt on and wear it…I might even make a big sign. I'm still being rude, but it's rudeness with a purpose, to make an issue of a problem that this rally intends to cover up. That's fair; that's free speech. And this is where I differ with the American flag boys.
I presume that this group of friends organized with the intent to protest the celebration of Cinco de Mayo in the public schools — that's the only plausible explanation for their coordination. As long as they were peaceful about it and doing nothing but wearing a flag shirt, they should have been allowed to do so, and the school was in the wrong to send them home (I think they were also awfully condescending when they said they did it because they thought Mexican-American students would riot over it.) They should have been allowed to non-violently express their opinions.
But here's the funny thing: what were they protesting? The fact that Mexican-American students are proud of their heritage? That's where the cowardice of these students shows up — that is a ridiculous and petty thing to complain about. Do they also show up on St Patrick's Day in orange, flogging leprechaun dolls? Are they resentful of the fact that some Minnesotans celebrate their ancestry on Syttende Mai? When you actually confront these teabaggers with the absurdity of complaining about fellow Americans taking pride in their families, they wilt and collapse and start making pathetic excuses.
There's the "they wear those shirts all the time" excuse. So it was just an accident that they all happened to wear their jingo on that particular day.
Dariano said her son has at least four T-shirts with American flags that he wears often and did not try to cause any conflict at school.
Well, gosh, Wally. When they discovered their entirely unintentional faux pas, then the boys should have been quick to affirm their sensitivity and do something about it, don't you think? That's not the case, though; it's a lie. Rather, they were quick to assert their indignation.
Then there's the "it's unfair to the boys" excuse.
"I'm more hurt than anything," she said. "It is so hurtful and disrespectful the way this has turned. These are American kids."
Note the oblivious attitude: this mother is talking about her son when she says "American kids". Guess what? The Mexican-American students at the school are also American kids!
Note also the "give me respect" excuse, which is carried to a ludicrous extreme.
The boys told Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden that turning their shirts inside-out was disrespectful, so their parents decided to take them home.
Man, these teabaggers are so focused on respect: it has to be given to their kids when they're being pointlessly provocative, and it even has to be given to their shirts. (And that is also weird: once upon a time, the act of chopping up the symbol of the flag and using it as clothing was regarded as disrespectful. Is turning it inside out more disrespectful than cutting, folding, sewing, and putting a row of buttons up the middle of the flag?) The only objects that don't deserve any respect are the Mexican-American students. The Fox News report is entirely about the white boys and how their rights were trampled upon, but the browner part of the student body seems to be ignored.
I concede that it was wrong of the school to silence their valiant message of silent protest. The sad thing now, though, is that the boys and their families are suddenly silencing themselves, realizing that their message might have been a little, errm, misplaced, and when exposed to the bright light of day, looks an awful lot like racism. Instead of hiding behind weak excuses, they ought to be proudly declaring the object of their protest: the existence of brown-skinned students of Mexican descent, and the celebration of a culture different than their own. Own your bigotry, boys! Don't run away when you're asked to articulate it! Unless, that is, you realize that you are bigots, and are a little ashamed of it all now.
Say…one of those boys is named "Dariano". That sounds suspiciously Italian, like maybe some of his ancestors were…immigrants, and not just any immigrants, but ones with darker complexions who spoke English poorly or with funny accents. I sure hope he doesn't celebrate Columbus Day.
- Log in to post comments
I was listening to the radio and some commentator pointed out that the flag-wearers and their supporters are also ignorant of history. The Cinco de Mayo victory was over the French, who the Union were afraid would assist the Confederacy in the US Civil War.
By knocking out the French, the Mexicans did us a big favor. linky to a site celebrating 5/5
Of course, many tea baggers are sorry the Confederacy lost, and probably would take that as an extra reason to hate Cinco de Mayo. They are, of course, the opposite of patriots.
An American, not Confederate, flag, displayed in America can never be offensive.
These patriots also apparently don't know that it's disrespectful and illegal to wear the American flag on a shirt, although there's no enforcement provision to the law and most patriotic Americans, especially tea baggers, don't seem to care.
Similarly, my local congressman had a protester outside his house after he voted for health care reform and he had to go out and ask the protester to move his flag because he was allowing it to touch the ground.
And of course, the school's and the district's only comment can be "No comment," as they have to protect the rights of all students. So we will probably only ever hear one side of the story.
Ebert's point seems to be more that the message is stupid, rather than the delivery. That the parents deny there was a message to begin with is very telling.
I don't necessarily agree with this, especially not that particular example. The message is clear and I can think of no better place to deliver it than where the supporters of the Pope congregate. Yes, it's offensive, but certainly no more offensive than what the Pope and the RCC have been doing.
Yes it can. Firstly because 'offensive' is a personal affair and you can't dictate what people will or won't be offended by. Secondly, the intention behind displaying the flag can make it offensive (for instance, those using it for the "America is for Americans ONLY!" nationalist crowd).
Aren't you Americans a little bit (read: WAAAYYYYY) too sensitive?
Why did assistant principal Miguel Rodriguez (probably neither Irish, Polish nor Italian), object to American flag colors on apparel worn by people who had no cultural ties to this particular festivity? And why would the principal assume Mexican-American people would find it objectionable, to the point they felt they had to 'attack', to be in the presence of American flags? This is all just too bat shit crazy for words. This is how you INSTILL and NURTURE hate between groups!
Ummm WHAT? Sure it's stupid, but these kids are well within their rights here as far as I can tell. So are kids who want to wear a hammer and sickle on July 4th for that matter. They shouldn't have been sent home for this.
@dutchdoc I expect you'll find most of us agree with PZ on this, and I'll just sum it up for you: the school was wrong to punish the kids, but the kids were jerks and Ebert made an amusing and reasonable comment on it, which resulted in inappropriate and outrageously hateful comments against him.
As always though, I wonder if there's more to the story than meets the eye.
The most absurd part for me is that "Cinco De Mayo" is a holiday that was not even celebrated here until the liquor companies started pushing it.
@Dutchdoc
Are we too sensitive?
Um, in short, um ... some of us, yes.
the sirts in question weren't merely red, white and blue, but had the characteristic stars and stripes of the American flag, and they wore American flag bandannas.
Because we ARE so inflamatory, it is clear that these kids were wearing these clothes for no other purpose than to be provocative. While I don't know how true it is, it's certainly arguable that simply wearing these clothes could provoke a violent reaction (although I find it highly unlikely - and the principal was merely being a nervous nelly). The principal while in addition to being wrong in his reaction, was also overly sensitive on behalf of the students he thought might be offended.
But I have to disagree with you, the instillation and nurturing of the hate came from being raised by semi-literate flag-worshipping jingoist parents.
mfd512 says, "An American, not Confederate, flag, displayed in America can never be offensive."
Um, actually it can. I get offended as hell when these ass-hole, jerk-off pseudopatriots fly the flag in crap weather. It is also offensive when the flag is used in an exclusionary manner--whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor..."
These people are scum. They don't deserve to be American.
It's been celebrated in California since 1860, and that it had absurd origins doesn't mean it's not a good holiday. Take Christmas for example....
I disagree with your assessment, PZ. I think these kids' actions can reasonably be interpreted as a protest against the formation of a racially-based political bloc within the United States that promotes fealty to ethnic (latino) or extranational (Mexican) identity prior to US national loyalty.
At my high school (in San Francisco, of all places), there were occasional racial tensions between Asians and whites, culminating in a bunch of the white kids getting the crap kicked out of them. I'm not passing judgment on that situation, but calling a bunch of middle schoolers cowardly bigots for political protest seems a little hasty, to say the least.
An American, not Confederate, flag, displayed in America can never be offensive.
you're an idiot. I remember clearly many americans being very offended at "hippies" sewing american flags to the seats of their jeans back in the '60's.
And I am still a little "old school" wrt flag etiquette. I am offended by the flag being made into clothing (not just attached to clothes as on uniforms) as I am offended by ignoramuses who fly the flag in the rain or at night or on their pickups and let them deteriorate into shredded rags.
Displaying the flag lying on the ground so people can walk on it would be plenty offensive to many people, as would using it as a table cloth or napkins or toilet paper. And finally, displaying it on fire even you might find offensive.
Well no one has come out as a winner with this. The principle saw racism and thought he had to do something about it. But like PZ points out his reaction was just really silly.
When will you sign that crocoduck tie of yours and send it to me?
This makes me actually want to wear a shirt with a hammer and sickle on the 4th of July. Maybe a Lenin badge.
Because the fourth of July celebrates freedom from a Monarchy, not Communism.
Why? Burning the flag is the only proper way to dispose of it. (That was supposed to be funny. Ha-ha. I crack myself up.)
As for the rest: I agree. I really don't care about the flag that much (it's just a frackin' crack... er, cloth). But for those who are so patriotic they must fly the flag, I really wish they would do so with respect. Otherwise, they are not only showing their nationalism (and I mean that in a bad way), but also their complete and utter willful ignorance.
My. I agree with the troll.
I'm a bit confused on how offensive it is, and why Ebert's examples all involve foreign flags. Is the history such that it's really comparable to a confederate (i.e., impliedly racist) flag at a Bud Billiken parade? Really? I just didn't think America was that anti-Mexican, even though some in America are.
It's not more like wearing a US flag to a St. Pat's day celebration, rather than a Union Jack?
Sorry but I just have to disagree with PZ on this.
The right to free speech includes the RIGHT TO BE JERKS. Their message or view can be subject to criticism like anyone else's - but they cannot and should not be curtailed from expressing their view even if it is *deliberately* offensive. All of us are "jerks" when we refuse to treat religion with undeserved deference.
Some years ago, cracker-gate exploded on the net. I was among the thousands who supported not just PZ's position but also that of the student who caused all that furor in church. The faithful are entitled to their delusions - but the rest of us are not obliged to extend deference toward them. Irrespective of stupidity of transubstantiation, the kid was entitled to treat the cracker as he deemed fit and if the devout took offense - well so be it.
Similarly these kids have EVERY right to be "jerks". Their message can (and probably should) be criticized for any racist intent or content - but they cannot and should not be prevented (let alone penalized) for the simple act of expressing their views - no matter how *deliberately* offensive they are.
From the U. S. Code:
So much for respect.
I could be mistaken or way behind the times, but I thought there have been many cases denying that students really have any 1st amendment rights in school at all.
If they had owned up to the protest, you might have a point. But they are denying it was a protest at all.
I support the rights of students to wear t shirts with a hammer and sickle, drug imagery, potentially offensive rock bands, alcohol, (non-racist/homophobic/sexist) slogans, etc. These kids should have been allowed to wear their flag shirts. Ebert may be right about their motivations, but as far as degrees of wrongness go, the school was way more wrong than these kids and he should have said so. Was it provocative and misguided? Yeah, but so is a lot of dumb teenage behavior, and I bet the rest of the students would have done a fine job at providing some negative re-enforcement. This just gives more fuel to the 'persecuted majority' whiners.
That's a load of bull. Context, context, context. Symbols are not inherently offensive or inoffensive. A nazi flag in a display about the history of World War 2 is not offensive, while an American flag at a white power rally to me is pretty offensive. It's the ideas that are behind the symbol that matter.
I heard this story earlier. Unfortunately, this story falls into a grey area. The students have the right to be assholes, and people have the right to tell them that they are being assholes. If all that the students were doing was wearing the t-shirts then they should not have been punished.
However, the school does have the responsibility to enforce its dress code, to prevent bullying and to ensure a safe environment to all of its students. The information I have heard was that some of the students were wearing bandanas, which were against the dress code and that they refused to remove them. In which case the school acted appropriately.
I would like to know more about the situation. These kids were making a statement. It could have been that these kids were just being dicks, or maybe they were looking for a fight. If they were looking for a fight, then the school administration does have a responsibility to try to prevent it.
@myminddroppings I don't see how you disagree with PZ, really. What many people seem to be missing is that none of these comments support the school's decision. PZ even says: "I concede that it was wrong of the school to silence their valiant message of silent protest." In other words, they have every right to be jerks. He's just saying he doesn't like their message or the way they said it, not that they don't have the right to do it. Likewise, Ebert merely suggested an alternate punishment that would be a little more thoughtful than sending them home and that any sane and reasonable person would see as humorous, not as advocating an actual response.
Did you mean 'the 1860s'? The Battle of Puebla occurred in 1862.
#27, you are mistaken. The children removed their bandannas immediately upon being asked.
It's unlikely that the students were looking for a fight. According to the news reports I've heard/watched, they were just sitting at a table together.
also: anyone who makes fun of ebert for his medical condition is the lowest form of humanity and deserves to contract nine different varieties of cancer.
What?! You mean they can't display banners saying "Bongs for Jesus"?!
I either meant "the 1860s" or "1863" and confused them. I blame the lack of caffeine, which I will now go rectify.
So we have a case of teenagers acting like children and Tea Baggers acting like teenagers.
Why is this news again?
Before some nut says that people are being oppressive, I will say this:
Repercussions do not equal oppression. You are free to make these horrid bigoted statements. Just beware that there will be social (but not legal) repercussion.
What?! You mean they can't display banners saying "Bongs for Jesus"?!
As I recall, that was not actually on school property.
Really? Doesn't bother you at all when gas stations use enormous American flags to get around sign zoning ordinances? When people wear it as clothing in violation of flag display code? When FOX news uses it as a background for news banners about blowing people up as if it were a good thing?
Wow... I guess the flag has some magic powers then.
Anyone want to help me pick a country whose emblems to wear on July 4 just for shits and giggles?
Casuistry, PZ.
The celebration of Cinco de Mayo in many communities is not the equivalent of St Patrick's Day. It is often an acknowledgment of the primacy of Mexican nationality and the Spanish language in the participants mind.
To argue at all about this subject, the above has to be part of the context.
Yes, the boys parents may very well be racist, BUT they also may be objecting to the above.
It is OK to place the United States first in your mind and heart when you are a citizen of the United States - no matter what pigment your skin may be.
As someone who has experienced anti-Latino sentiments by dumb, overprivileged white teenagers I say:
1) I find it hard to believe their story. These kids knew exactly what they were doing.
2) The school was wrong to send them home. Besides the issue of free speech I prefer to let bigots identify themselves so I can avoid wasting time on them.
3) I'm disappointed in Fox News. They are usually a lot better at scaring white bigots than this:
Is that supposed to make it better?
You people and your fucking flags.
Unless it's Canada Day, there's only one reason non-douchebag Canadians wear Canadian flags, and that reason involves not being mistaken for a certain other nationality while abroad.
I had a feeling from the very start that this had more to do with the posturing of the flag wearers than the actual flag wearing. Attitude exudes from the pores of middle school bully boys, and the halls can stink of the aggression. Likely, the school admin would have done it all differently in hindsight. Maybe a meeting in the auditorium talking about how different American nationalities celebrate their heritage in the US, listing Octoberfest, St. Patty's, etc. How few of us can go back more than a few generations without another country cropping up somewhere.
This is the kind of thing I wish my school had done when I was little. My mother was a German war bride and I was the "Nazi's kid" when we moved to Virginia in the 60's. It wasn't easy. I recently bumped into a guy from the old neighborhood and he was actually shaking while apologizing for his treatment of me. He had carried the guilt around all these years, as I had carried the anger.
Great. Now you've let them in on the secret.
Now we'll have to listen out for the "eh"s and "aboats".
Meh. To me, the only difference between this incident and crackergate is that I disagree with an attempt to marginalize Mexican-Americans, while I support open ridicule of Catholicism. The incident could have been used to open a discussion about racism/nationalism. It seems that all that is being discussed is the right to wear a t-shirt. Sending the students home and getting parents/media involved was just stupid in my opinion...rather than educate, this will reinforce and polarize.
So, meh.
Equisetum #23,
To think, If the school had only enforced U.S. code, none of this would have happened.
Tend to agree with PZ (and Ebert) on things, but couldn't agree less on this. I'm not what I would conciser a nationalist, but I can see why people could be offended by a group of people parading around the flag of another country while living in America, and never thought anything other than the incident being a case of a vice-principal in need of firing. Seeing a lot of Political Correctness here on this.
Here's an article with a video of a school superintendant trying to do damage control:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/principal-sorry-for-…
This incident also kinda reminds me of this thread. The discussion was about Female Genital Mutilation and guys came in complaining about circumcision. For some, when you're privileged everything must be about you.
(Just so there's no confusion, there are of course males and white people who don't act like this.)
Ebert's comment was asinine, as was the school decision to send the kids home. The kids may be douchebag cowards, but wearing an American flag -- or any other country's flag -- should not be prohibited, especially not in the context of a school. If they crashed a diversity organization's meeting or something, then that context would certainly be inappropriate, but not just going to school. And disciplining them for concerns about OTHER students actually breaking the rules to fight them just based on permitted clothing is even more ridiculous.
If controversially and actively protesting Vietnam is not too "incendiary" to warrant school discipline (which it's not, according to the Supreme Court), neither is this. From a legal standpoint, this seems to be a very straight-forward free speech case; the students would almost certainly win a lawsuit, and they should -- though based on the article the school district already realizes it acted wrongly, and they'll likely issue an apology and avoid a suit. If there was school on July 4th, I'd want people to be able to wear Mexican regalia to school as well on that date.
Just wondering...if it had been St. Patrick's Day or Syttende Mai and they had worn American flag t-shirts would that have been evidence of their douchebaggery? Why, in the context of Cinco de Mayo, is the American flag disrespectful? Why do so many of the comments associate the American flag with symbols of hatred or oppression...Confederate flags/Union Jack/Hammer & Sickle?
Hockey games eh
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Cinco De Mayo has been celebrated for a good, LONG time.
Just not celebrated HERE.
Fucking Merikans. Do you not have any fucking intention of learning about the culture of your neighbors?
Now HERE is an excellent commentary:
http://townhall.com/columnists/JosephCPhillips/2010/05/10/of_flags_and_…
I do loves me a good linguistic shibboleth.
The same lies were told about Irish and Japanese and Italian Americans. It was racist bullshit then and it's racist bullshit now.
"They'll be loyal to something else besides America" is standard racist boilerplate.
We don't require people to stop loving their mother country when they move here. Nor should we, as it would be a stupid and heartless demand.
And what the fuck is your complaint about Spanish? People are allowed to speak Spanish. Yes, they're probably calling you racista behind your back, but it's a free country.
No, it is not OK. The United States should never come before human rights. The United States should never come before the prohibitions on aggressive war. The United States should never come before basic decency to other people.
Really? I have a whole bunch of American flags made out of paper and displayed on a little cardboard tube in my bathroom... if that's not offensive I guess I'm just going to have to try harder.
If it was intentional, yes, especially if it had occurred in the days when anti-Irish prejudice was the norm. This incident didn't occur in isolation. There has been a crusade against "illegal immigrants" *wink* *wink* in the last few years.
It's not that it's necessarily for hatred but it's that they aren't even allowing a minority to have their one day (see my comment @#48).
There's a poll at MSNBC about the mohave cross that needs busting just in case you didn't hear it was stolen...
Tinker test
Intentions matter. One has to wonder why all five students chose that particular day to display their pride in their country. Yes, it could just have been a coincidence, as one of their parents suggests. But I don't for one second believe that it was.
"It is often an acknowledgment of the primacy of Mexican nationality and the Spanish language in the participants mind."
Glad to know you're an expert on what is in others' hearts and minds... but if you're right, so fucking what.
"It is OK to place the United States first in your mind and heart when you are a citizen of the United States - no matter what pigment your skin may be."
And it's OK to place Mexico first in your heart and mind when you're a citizen of the United States. Or anywhere else for that matter. Or no place above an other. Or all of the above.
The flag-wearing students have every right to express their opinion which as it so happens in this case is fucking stupid.
I like how people seem to take for granted the idea that of _course_ there could have been no violent flare-ups over the flags. Middle-schoolers with raging hormones never get into fights. Racial tensions between groups never need one little spark to set things off. And school principals _definitely_ don't have the power and the duty to prevent violence in the school.
I'm not willing to judge the principal without ever having seen or attended the school in question. It's possible he(?) knows more about the situation than any of us commenters do.
1. I'm *never* going to side with public school admins who make kids turn their shirts inside out or go home. Fuck. That.
2. This is America. Suspending kids for wearing American flags is fucking nuts, and I don't care if they're the dumbest, most Tea Baggiest Tea Baggers ever and it's Arab American Luv Day and they hate Arabs.
3. Proactively telling these kids their shirts would drive Hispanic students into a rage is condescending and racist.
4. My girlfriend's Hispanic, so I asked what she thought. She said "Fuck everybody in that story, and stop bothering with this white people Internet shit about race, I told you."
Punctuation prig here again.
PZ, note that quotation marks are used correctly in this post when you reprint the writings of others. Then you use them erroneously in your comments.
Go ahead and flame me, folks. Yes, consistency is over-rated. But it's just a matter of basic punctuation.
Heart and mind? I thought we were talking about plastering oneself with obvious and superficial paeans to patriotism. If you're really concerned that these kids have the US in their heart and minds, you might try quizzing them on the differences between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
You and your fucking flags.
Well of course you can see why.
Cinco de Mayo is primarily an American (as in US of) holiday. It has been celebrated here for a long time.
It ought to be no problem wearing an American flag on an American day of celebration, except that intent and context matter. These boys were not out to join in the festivities with their Mexican-American compatriots, they were out to rouse resentment.
This is an old, old story in the US, and we ought to be used to it by now. For hundreds of years we've had these flare-ups every time some new immigrant group becomes both numerous and proud of their heritage, and the previous generation's most common ethnic group wrap themselves in the flag and declare themselves the True Americans™, not those dirty micks/wops/spics/whatevers.
Oh, and those of you who are whining that they were just wearing American flags and we ought to be allowed to wear American flags and they didn't mean nothin' by wearing American flags...toughen up. Be brave. Go ahead and admit you just don't like them Mexicans.
Fixed
/ducks and runs
"I pledge allegiance..." to NO flag. They are, after all, divisive symbols. Like religion, they set people against each other.
I like what Carl Sagan had to say about this:
"National boundaries are not evident from space. Fanatical ethnic, religious or national chauvinisms are a little difficult to maintain when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars."
As far as I can tell, Galli, Carvalho, Maciel and Dariano are all immigrant names, of Italian and Portugese origins. It amazes me that for some people there is an invisible line drawn somewhere in history where national identity is assumed.
We get the same in Britain, with the BNP wanting a Britain for the "indigenous people" of the British Isles, purportedly of 18,000 years past, yet Britain was land-bridged to France until around 9,000 years ago. What gives?
Okay, as far as I can see from what I've read, this is nothing more than a group of kids feeling left out of the party, so they made up their own widdle party of their own and called it the "not-that-other-stupid-party" party.
The only problem is, rather than raise the hackles of their peers, they ended up getting a school administrator's panties in a bunch over it.
Sorta reminds me of kids acting up when a new baby is brought home and they're no longer the center of attention anymore.
For the last 56 years or so, I've participated in both St. Patrick's Day and Columbus Day celebrations (I'm Irish/Italian...the cold wind and the warm). As far back as I can remember, those were celebrations of both our heritage and our home, combining sentimentality about the auld sod with praise of the country that had taken us in. Table decorations were Italian or Irish flags crossed with American flags. Why should Cinco de Mayo be any different?
Fixed it for you, Rev.
Ah, yes, the Malkin Effect.
Why exactly? When did ingroup bias become a virtue? Is it also OK to place white people first in your mind and heart when you are a white person or is there something special and noble about patriotism which separates it from racism or sexism or all the other forms of fuck-the-other-ism?
We just had a good conversation about this over on Dispatches.
It's my understanding that the battle for which the 5th of May is celebrated was one between the Mexican and the French. It's also my understanding that Union soldiers provided weapons and ammunition to the Mexican soldiers in support of their battle.
If this is correct, Cinco de Mayo should be a celebration of a bond between Mexico and the U.S., and displaying either flag should be quite alright.
Fixed it for you, PZ.
Yeah, it should be. That doesn't, however, appear to have been their intent.
#55 and #61
The Spanish language is a European language. I say this because somehow it has become conflated with the rights of the oppressed, when, in fact its history in this hemisphere is AT LEAST as oppressive as the English language.
A single national language is extremely important for those who are oppressed to access opportunities in the real world. If you want the United States to be Spanish speaking, then fine. You've got your work cut out for you. But to object to it as a primary language does not make you racist.
BTW, what is a 'Mexican' race-wise. Did you know that racism is prevalent in Mexico? Did you know that the Mexican concept of race is different than the United States? Did you know that Mexicans bristle every time an American calls herself an 'American.'
I recommend the Union Flag of Great Britain. We British are, of course, your true masters.
re 41:
I think you misunderstand. The fact that it was not on school proerty means that, in my opinion, "Bongs for Jesus" is indeed protected by the 1st Amendment and the school was wrong for making him take it down or expel him or whatever the details of it were.
The point I was asking about before you brought up "Bongs 4 Jesus" was free speech protection on school property. The point is not whether it is better but it is a different situation.
I agree with the notion that Cinco De Mayo should be about solidarity between the Mexican and American (United Statesian?) people and the celebration should include both flags, but that ain't the case.
Just as it should be a display of solidarity if I were to wrap myself in the French flag on July 4th to show how much I appreciate the contributions, both material and philosophical, of the French to the Revolutionary War and founding principals of the U.S.
But I'd be foolish beyond words to think that other people in the crowd weren't getting the impression that I prefer France to the United States.
The intent was clear: they weren't attempting to celebrate America's assistance with the battle in mexico, they were saying loud and clear "we are REAL™ Americans, and you aren't."
@Katherine #38
In theory, the Union Flag* should be the most offensive, as it was the British Empire from whom we declared our independence. However, unfortunately, as ignorant as many Americans are about our own history, and since the English are, you know, American-speaking people who mispell words and have funny accents, many people won't be offended by a British flag.
(* - A "Jack" is a flag flown from the stern of a ship to indicate nation of origin or registry. It's a testament to the British history as a naval power that their flag is known as the Union "Jack" in a non-nautical context.)
I see context is lost on you.
To object to them using it at their leisure, however, does make you a racist.
Yes, Yes, Yes.
What a surprise, that another country has its own conceptions on race. And I can see why they get ticked at 'American', considering that spanish has a word specifically for United Statesian.
PZ,
These kids may have been brats, but Ebert is wrong.
"Kids who wear American Flag t-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July. (RE)"
The H&S by itself is a political symbol and more analogous to a swastika (yes, I went there) than the former flag of the USSR.
But let's stick with the flag for a moment. Is Ebert saying that Mexican-American (not Mexican, mind you, but Mexican-American) kids view the US flag as some kind of hostile, alien symbol - or that they should view it that way?
You hardly need to be a "Tea-Bagger" to take that away from his remarks, especially after Ebert digs himself an even deeper hole with his "four easy thought experiments" follow up remarks, wherein he repeats the same equivalency argument.
"I suggest you intend to insult your fellow students. Not because they do not respect THEIR flag, but because you do not respect their heritage. (RE)"
Really? Because I didn't see one scrap of that, anywhere. Were there words exchanged? Confrontations? Ethnic slurs? ANYTHING?
Nope. Just US flag-wear. Again, why would US flags be seen as disrespectful by American students?
BTW, you seem to share Ebert's strange notion of 'respect.' You sneer at the boys for bringing it up, but here is student Annicia Nunez:
"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day. We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."
Link here
This 'respect' sure is a funny thing, eh?
And please, let's not hear the usual PC twaddle about sensitivity and diversity, m'kay? The intolerant tribalism on display with Ms Nunez is the polar opposite of that.
"The Mexican-American students at the school are also American kids," you say, chiding the one kid's mom for her "oblivious attitude."
I agree.
The thing is, American kids wouldn't have a problem with a US flag-themed shirt on any day of the year. Just as the Slavic-American kid writing these words doesn't.
So do the kids celebrating this holiday see themselves as Mexican-American kids or as Mexican kids in America?
If the first... what's the problem - even if the other kids were being jerks? The celebrants are Americans; it's their flag too.
If the second... well, now we have quite a different dilemma, don't we? One going far beyond harmless heritage festivals or which flag is on a shirt.
Side note 1:
Why are they "five privileged white kids," PZ?
Privileged? Are they rich? Do you know something about them?
There is something more than a bit off about a famous, influential and tenured university professor calling a public high school kid 'privileged.'
Of course, 'privilege' is also a perennial calumny of choice on the Left. Is that the case here, then? A little rhetorical dog-whistling?
Side note 2:
Your closing remarks re Columbus Day were, in a word, unhinged.
I don't know what things are like out there in Midwest WASPland, but here in NY we have multitudes of Italian (and other) immigrants who celebrate Columbus Day and every other heritage festival you can think of.
Guess what? US flags everywhere. In fact, immigrants and their 1st-gen American-born kids are more likely to proudly fly the Stars & Stripes than anyone else, right next to the flags of their various nations of origin.
And anyone seeing that as "disrespect" would be laughed off the street.
exactly
I'm considering to celebrate May 17. with the private burning of a Norwegian flag this year. This is not to be wrongfully interpreted as disrespect for a national symbol or hatred for the country, but rather a celebration of the slow, painful and sometimes reversed progress of understanding. I fear some people will not understand, though.
Also Olympics. Don't forget olympics!
re #22 (and other comments along this line),
I don't think you actually are disagreeing with PZ. Because PZ does say that he thought the school should not have silenced them. He's not saying these kids don't have a right to be jerks, he's just pointing out that they are being jerks.
The right to freedom of speech means the right to protection from physical and legal consequences of your speech, but it is accompanied by the responsibility to accept the social consequences of your speech.
One funny thing - I was born and raised in California, and I can recall having to make diaramas of the California missions (unfortunately, I didn't know enough in elementary school to include natives dying of smallpox, or priests whipping native slaves), learning about the various pre-US wars that took place here, and participating in Cinco de Mayo celebrations that the school had. Horrible memories of being forced to dance Mexican folk dances with cootie-infested girls, and wishing we could do cool things such as reenact the battles sans girls.
I distinctly remember US and Mexican flags being displayed prominantly all over the place, and no one ever saying boo about the whole thing.
But then, that's was California long long ago.
Bigots in multicultural immigrant societies feel free to put that line right after they or their parents immigrated. Everybody who comes after can go to hell (unless they speak perfect English and adopt all the other mannerisms of locals, of course.)
Happened to my dad somewhere over the last fifty years. He went from being a 'DP' and a 'bohunk'* with an accent to a self-described full member of the population of 'endangered white Canadian folk' who were being all kinds of oppressed by whiny women and visibly ethnic minorities (hey, what are they complaining about? It's not like they had to put up with being called a bohunk for a two-year period in Junior High.)
I don't get it, either.
Somebody toss this Ephraimite into the Jordan.
Wiseasses.
*Perhaps he'd had been less offended if they'd used a more appropriate slur for a Lithuanian.
These kids didn't have Mexican and American flags. They just had the American. If they had both I wouldn't consider it douchebaggery (or if it was unintentional, which I don't believe for a second).
That's true and irrelevant. In this period of time in the US it is the oppressed language. If we were in, say, South America talking about native languages vs. Spanish then you can go on about it being oppressive.
Usually some mixture of European and Native American heritage (some exceptions of course).
That's true and irrelevant. The discussion at hand is about American racism. Until we become a society where race doesn't matter whatsoever then we can have a discussion about racism in Mexico. Until then, let's focus on our own.
That's true and irrelevant.
C'mon, PZ, be fair.
These kids were a lot of things, but "devious" isn't one of them.
"Devious" implies a level of cleverness and subtlety.
You weren't the brightest bulb in the box, were you?
Let me spell it out for you, because your entire post seems to be predicated on this:
The US Flag is not what the students found offensive. It was the giant 'Fuck You' that those kids wearing all flags on Cinco de Mayo stood for. I sincerely doubt they were angry at the flag poles of the country still mostly displaying the US Flag. The US flag, by itself, is hardly offensive. Using it as a cudgel against the out group, however, is.
So you're a mind reader now huh?
Or are you just the one who gets to define what American kids should and should not feel?
YES I did, every St. Patrick's day from High School until the Good Friday Peace accords were signed- about 20 years. The IRA was planting bombs in intersections, along parade routes, in bookstores, other places and not specifically targeting military personnel. I was confronted only once.
What do you even think your point is, barfy? Can you articulate it?
In modern civil matters, it doesn't matter where the language comes from. The issue at hand is that people should be allowed to speak the languages they speak, and it's nothing but xenophobia for you to complain that people speak a language you don't understand.
Asserted without evidence. Assuming that it is important as you say, again, what is your point? You want to complain about people speaking Spanish because you paternalistically know what's better for them?
What is your point? Do you even know?
It's a racist action. Look, you can either say racist things or you can have people believe you aren't a racist, but you can't have both.
Races can be a false construct, yet to discriminate against people based on these perceived differences is still racism.
So it's OK to be racist against them.
So it's OK to force brown-skinned people to present ID without probable cause.
So it's OK to ostracize them at school.
Someone with a Google account #70:
There's a saying: The last ones to come in close the door.
The kids were being provocative asses they knew what they were doing but they were within their rights as long as their speech caused only discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompanies an unpopular viewpoint. Now if for some reason their protest went further than this then the school was within it's rights to shut them down.
Could it be argued that the antagonism was strong enough to cause a disruption? I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but it's going to be interesting to see how it turns out, I'll assume that there will be some kind of court case over it.
They should view it that way if that's the way it is intended.
The context of this entire discussion is much broader than 5 brats and a date. This comes at a time when Arizona is heading of into "ver are your pay-pers?" land, when American nationalism is flaring up like a bad case of hemorrhoids (with the Tea Baggers as the sensitive assholes), when schools think it's OK to tell kids to turn their non-offensive t-shirts inside-out just because it makes folks uncomfortable.
However, just because the t-shirts were non-offensive, doesn't mean the kids wearing them were non-offensive. It's pretty damned easy to take what should be a non-offensive symbol (the American flag) and turn it into something supremely offensive.
Hell. That's exactly what our last President did.
So... where can we get that "Arrest the Pope" t-shirt?
re 86:
This sounds like you are just deliberately trying to be dense. It is not the flag itself that is the isssue, but the intent of the wearers. And in this context, yes I think it is reasonably interpreted to be a provocative act.
PZ: you are mischaracterizing any dissent into a false dichotomy. I'm not saying the kids WEREN'T trying to be pro-American, anti-immigrant idiots (and I will even concede that much). I'm saying it doesn't -- and shouldn't -- matter, from a free speech perspective. Why is such clothing bearing political speech bad when you disagree with it? Why not in the famous Vietnam protests?
Now, if the kids actually disrupted events or started fights, THEN punish them. But doing so preemptively solely based on otherwise permissible clothing that had been allowed previously (and NO bad conduct) is not only ridiculous, but blatantly unconstitutional. I don't care if it's American or Canadian or Mexican flag-based clothing.
I wonder if she's even aware of what she said here. *shakes head* Racism runs so damn deep.
Somebody needs to force those damned Cajuns to start speaking English before they cause the downfall of traditional American society.
What the fuck? It's intolerant tribalism to ask that you not use a day important in Mexican history to tell Mexicans that you hate them?
Thank you, GeorgeFromNY, from announcing that you are a racist. I did not know that about you before. I will keep it in mind in the future.
What part of:
do you think disagrees with what you just said?
Not that I typically rush to the defense of folks perfectly capable of defending themselves, but did you even read the post?
What PZ said:
Feel free to disagree with PZ, but please try to disagree with something actually said.
RTFT
You're a grand old flag
You're a high flying flag
And forever you'll stay on my shirt
With your sweat and stains
And food remains
You're covered with oil and with dirt
Let the Tea Bags brew
Whether Red state or Blue
As my tee shirt becomes a rag
The Constitution be forgot
Keep your eye on the grand old flag!
Wesley, PZ is already saying the kids wearing flags should not have been punished for it.
Did you misunderstand him?
Shorter barfy @#80:
Why all the sympathy for Spanish speakers? Don't you realise they're assholes? And those Mexicans? Don't even get me started.
Shorter GeorgeFromNY @#80:
Blah-blah 'PC twaddle'...blah blah 'Left'...blah blah 'I see minorities every day and I ain't never hear 'em complaining about American flags'
Doug Little wrote:
At my high school you'd be hard-pressed to find a form of antagonism that wasn't strong enough to cause a disruption. I'd hate to be a school administrator and have to make those kinds of calls on a daily basis.
Wesley wrote:
Oh sure, and face even angrier parents and injury and death lawsuits for waiting for a brouhaha to start before stepping in?
You'd fail as a school administrator.
I'd say that the kids probably thought they were being pro-American but their actions can be construed as being rather more anti than pro. They obviously need to take more interest in the history of the country that they supposedly love so much.
I'm not all that up on the First Amendment law, but I'm pretty sure that if the principal has a reasonable fear that there will lead to, not just discomfort, but actual violence, then it's not unconstitutional at all, because the government's interest in a well-run school trumps the students' limited rights to free speech in this context.
I must apologize to PZ; I missed the portion near the bottom which correctly stated the school was in the wrong. Consider my last post directed towards the people still defending the school.
Considering I already agreed that wearing the flags could definitely be rude and inappropriate, I suddenly am without much disagreement. However, I still do disagree on the degree to which Ebert stated -- though that might be more of a semantic argument than anything.
#14
They're such brave kids, standing up for the rights, the humanity, the liberation of white Americans. Just like those protesters at that Woolworth's, a bit back. Just like that.
#21
It might be a bit less contentious if they weren't draping themselves with American flags in the midst of other people celebrating Mexican culture and roots in a place that was?just a short time, a little aggressive war, and 38,000 slaughtered people ago?Mexico.
#67,
PZ - sure, I'll toughen up.
I don't like the notion of my state's political process being disrupted by an ethnically-centered political bloc that fights for the naturalization of people who are here illegally. If naturalized, they would immediately dominate California politics. We have ~3 million illegal immigrants here, something like 7-9% of the total population.
I oppose groups like La Raza for the same reason I oppose white nationalist groups. People who believe that California, Arizona, and Texas ought to be a part of the Mexican nation bother me. Am I a bigot for thinking this?
re 117:
Wow 8% is "total domination"? Yes, you are a bigot.
#104
Interviews tend to last an hour, with only a few quotes being selected for publication. The mother may have been much more reasonable in the actual interview.
Her statement could be (very favorably) interpreted as balking at the absurdity of American kids undergoing this sort of treatment in American, as opposed to, say, Russian or Chinese kids experiencing it in America. This is mere speculation, of course.
Brownian, OM
True 'dat.
It is going to be interesting whether they can justify their actions within the context of the law. Here is an interesting scenario, what if the administrators were trying to head off a violent confrontation that the perceived to be imminent, in this case both sides are in the wrong, and the administrators are actually in the right.
I'm a little fuzzy on how 8% of the population would dominate the politics. Please elaborate on that. Thank you.
I oppose groups like La Raza for the same reason I oppose white nationalist groups. People who believe that California, Arizona, and Texas ought to be a part of the Mexican nation bother me. Am I a bigot for thinking this?
La Raza and Aztlan? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Lou Dobbs, is that you?
Holy shit. All you need is 7-9% of the vote to win in California? Is that how your immigrant Governor won?
Or are you worried that the 7-9% when added to the legal Latino American population in California will tip the overall numbers in "their" favour (whatever that is?)
It seems it's democracy itself you've got an issue with.
Yep. Also an idiot for proffering a strawman, unless you can produce some aspect of their platform that suggests they're a front for a major land grab by Mexico.
So what exactly is it about white nationalist groups you oppose? Since it's certainly not their policies you disagree with, it must be their honesty.
Population is obviously split exactly 50:50 all the time, 8% of the population suddenly being immigrants would push things to the Democrats all the time as obviously all immigrants will vote Democrat.
That being the case, I vote for an amnesty and immediate naturalization of all illegals (or I would if I had voting rights!)
Students do not have the same first amendment rights in school that they do outside of school.
That said, I don't believe minors have the same first amendment rights that adults have anyway.
I agree that on first blush, this does not appear to have been handled appropriately by the school officials, but I'm sure that will be investigated by people that have a much better grasp on the situation than I do. It would be a shame if I formed my thoughts about scientific discoveries only from press releases, for example. It's been a revelation that has impacted how I read the news now.
False analogy. It's more like the NAACP.
Also, while raza literally means 'race' the connations are different in Latin America. It's more about cultural heritage than about race. For example, Samy Sosa, Evo Morales and Shakira are all part of la raza. It's about as racist as the concept of 'being American'.
You're uninformed for thinking this because the National Council of La Raza does NOT believe this:
#118
Is your second statement in reference to the first? I think calling me statistically incompetent would be more fitting, but I digress.
Think about it this way: if a single voting bloc (which might comprise, say, 18% of the population) suddenly increases by 8% of the entire population, its clout proportionally. This causes the local and state politicians, whose sole purpose is to get re-elected, to re-engineer their platforms to favor that group - usually at the expense of other groups. I happen to belong to the other group, and think that ethnic political blocs are contrary to the principle of egalitarianism (which should apply even to brown people, not just the guilty whites). Therefore I have both philosophical and economic reasons to be oppose such groups.
I guess my bigotry is totally exposed now, bro.
re 117:
For thinking that naturalizing Mexican immigrants in those states would make those states part of the Mexican nation is what makes you a bigot.
Think about why that is a problem for you, for one second.
Anyone who disagrees with me is probably racist.
You racist bastard!
That was not to PZ, but to anyone who disagrees with me. You know who you are.
Well, of course they're all gonna vote the same way. What if an especially important salsa bill comes up? The whites'll be fucked.
I'm sorry, but do you think anything you've said contradicts your bigotry?
Is English not your first language?
Are you having a hard time reading and typing with that Klan hood on?
You'll have to contend with more than that, bigot.
I'll fight for the naturalization of people who are here illegally, and I'm a native-born white guy.
It would be terrible if those people were allowed to have taxation with representation.
So you only oppose white nationalist groups because they work to reduce poverty for white people (if only they did)? That's a piss poor reason to oppose them.
You ought to oppose them because they seek to deny opportunities to non-white people, activity which has no parallel in La Raza, an organization equivalent to the NAACP.
You're a bigot for lying about what they believe, yes.
La Raza claims no such thing.
As for the sentiment that you're alluding to, advocates do not claim that the modern Mexican government should invade the United States. Rather, they advocate that the people living in northern Mexico and the southern US should be allowed to travel as they did in recent history; descendants of Native Americans should be able to cross an arbitrary border that was drawn down the middle of their homelands, disrupting their communities, commerce and families.
Aw, and her I was ready to give KoleTrain a zinger, and a half dozen people beat me to it.
Ah, I get it!
It's not that THEY'RE Mexican, it's that YOU'RE white! And you don't like that democratic politics makes concessions to constituencies roughly (sometimes *makes equivocating gesture*) proportional to their representation, and their unwhite political interests might be to your detriment!
That's totally different!
re 127:
So you are really only opposed to the other ethnic bloc getting power because you want your bloc to keep it. That is bigotry.
Off topic:
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-105163.html
Only in crazy US this issue even exists...
So let me get this straight you agree that everybody should be equal, but confess that you are currently part of the group that is given favoritism by elected officials because your group currently makes up the biggest voting bloc in your state.
@SteveM
Ah no! He just explained it. He's not anti-brown, here's merely pro-white.
It's like the difference between evolution on one hand, and changes in allelic frequency in a population over time.
The difference is ... um ...
So, you're different from white nationalists who claim that Barack Obama will favor black people over white people ... how?
Man, some of you look like 1%ers talking patch...
Sorry but I find that venerating a piece of cloth and giving it special, magical importance is just as silly as doing the same with religious symbols and invisible friends.
Besides that, I think PZ is more or less right on track in his evaluation of the incident.
"look like"? You mean they aren't?
I happen to belong to the other group, and think that ethnic political blocs are contrary to the principle of egalitarianism (which should apply even to brown people, not just the guilty whites)
The Southern Strategy was designed to appeal specifically to people like you, resentful and terrified whites.
"I pledge allegiance..." to NO flag. They are, after all, divisive symbols. Like religion, they set people against each other.
I like what Carl Sagan had to say about this:
"National boundaries are not evident from space. Fanatical ethnic, religious or national chauvinisms are a little difficult to maintain when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars."
#134
I'll restate my position: I am intrinsically opposed to ethnic political blocs.
#133
My issues with democracy were summed up by Winston Churchill. Political favors for special interests are an intrinsic part of democracy, but if the voting demographics are radically shifted, this increases the bargaining power of particular special interests.
#123/126/132 (others?)
I did not mean to imply that La Raza supports Reconquista, though my formatting did imply that. My mistake. Nonetheless, I am uncomfortable with that sentiment and have encountered it while in SoCal. I don't have numbers on what percentage of South/Central American immigrants hold that belief.
#131, English is my second language. I am a first-gen immigrant.
Actually, I'll contest all those of you who are accusing Koletrain of racism. He's not a racist, at least not from his statement about voting blocs. He's a self-serving opportunist who wishes to maintain his position of privilege, but not necessarily a bigot.
Okay.
However, your comparison of them to white nationalists is dead wrong.
Latinos are a special interest. Whites aren't. Latinos are a monolith. Whites aren't. Latinos only vote their ethnic identity. Whites don't. Do I have it right, KoleTrain?
So white men born into the middle class aren't permitted to discuss privilege?
Hey, we finally found a field where it sucks to be a white middle class male, guys! It's sociology! Who knew?
Oh, wait, no, because they're the only ones taken seriously. They're 'objective'.
Ah, I see. In reference to irenedelse's comment #98, you're just shutting the door behind you.
Imagine that 90% of the state population consisted of illegal immigrants, to make the idea of Hispanic domination of California a little more believable.
Would it then be OK to deny them rights and civil services and participation in the government? What do you want, a state filled with serfs to do your dirty work for you while being excluded from representation?
Even at 8% it seems a bit unethical to deny them participation. The best way to cope with the people working in our communities is to coopt them, rather than evict them.
re 145:
"racist" .ne. "bigot"
As that position of privilege depends on dominating people of another perceived race, that's racism.
He doesn't have to hate them to actively hurt them.
#87
I don't complain about speaking Spanish. Personally, I think Esperanto makes a lot of sense for global reasons. Even Mandarin. But, do I really need to prove that a single language allows for greater access to goods and services no matter the country? I don't care what language people speak at home. I also don't care what language the US adopts. I do care that there is a single language. In practical terms, the world has made English the language of aviation. That doesn't mean that English is the best language. Spanish is the oppressor language of Mexico. That is the context of Spanish. It is neither worse nor better than English.
You ask me if it's OK to be racist against Mexicans because racism is prevalent in Mexico. I actually enjoy these discussions of race, because they always end in the absurd. What I believe is that if you believe in 'race' then you are a 'racist.' There is no out. So, no, it is not OK to be racist. It is also not OK to patently discriminate against someone because of their nationality. However, nations do mean something. I happen to believe that the United States has many attributes that are superior to Mexico. I also believe that Mexico has many attributes that are superior to the United States. I still prefer the United States.
Hey, there. I'll have you know that as a white middle class male, I'm an expert on privilege.
#145
Close. I'm definitely privileged and an opportunist. But I don't have a voting bloc: there is no group to which I belong that agrees with me on how to vote. I'm extremely secular (in the Hitch camp), socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.
White ethnic solidarity is nonexistent in California, and I think this is a good thing. While I oppose minority ethnic voting blocs for the same reason, majority ethnic voting blocs are more dangerous because they have the capacity to oppress the minority.
#146
Fair enough. I think they are qualitately similar but quantitatively different, in terms of exclusion of non-homoethnic individuals.
#147
A little absolutist, but fairly close. There is no white national identity in California. There is a non-monolithic latino ethnic identity. I find this to be objectionable, but they are acting in their economic self-interest so I can't really blame them from that perspective.
#149
Yeah, but we came here legally. If I could make some sort of portal from California to my home country, we'd be delivering pizzas and writing your code like no tomorrow.
@Koletrain #144
So, in what way are Latino interests "special" interests while your interests are just regular ole' interests? Is this the same way gay people are always campaigning for "special" rights instead of just plain ole' equal rights?
Liar:
Ah, the "there's no white identity politics" nonsense,
KoleTrain #144:
Just an FYI, the vast majority of Hispanic immigrants are from Mexico. Mexico=North America.
#156
I guess there might be industry groups representing the interests of my employeers, but beyond that I'm not really a special interest.
Latino interests are "special" because they (not all of them, of course) are an organized political bloc that have organizations that lobby on their behalf. Kind of like AIPAC is a special interest group for pro-Israeli Jews, but it's only roughly analogous because AIPAC isn't lobbying for domestic favors for its members.
But... all those damned Mexicans, well, they're just gonna vote against your interests to keep the man down, amiright? Why exactly are you scared of them?
Heads up, dude: You're just digging yourself into a bigger and bigger hole.
Feynmaniac:
Exactly. They have the *right* to do what they did, but that doesn't mean they weren't behaving like heartless assholes.
And what's with the NAACP? They're, like, all black. How racist is that?
*cough*
bigot
*cough*
You can't see the difference between a group that preaches hatred of others and one that wants to defend minorities?
Bill Maher was fucking right:
"They are plenty of people to be mad at out there.....Why set our crosshairs on the humble servile people? I'll tell you why. We're bullies. Instead of confronting real threats like the debt, or the environment, or Utah we pick out the poorest, most defenseless kid on the block....As usual you're mad at the wrong people."
...flogging leprechaun dolls
Wow, they have flogging leprechaun dolls now? ...I want one.
#160
Wait, so their interests are "special" because they're organized and have a lobby?
So, by your definition, if all people who advocated for same sex marriage organized and formed a group or groups that lobbied on their behalf, they would be "special" too, no?
So, you're saying that you're simply opposed to all lobbying on behalf of a group with similar interests?
Oh, and btw, AIPAC represents all pro-Israeli people, both jew and wacky evangelical christian, alike.
The vast majority of white americans have ancestors that either came over illegally, came over under a false "legality" (legal as defined by their fellow illegal immigrants, not by the true inhabitants of the continent who they were busy displacing and slaughtering in a genocide...)
Or, they came over legally in a time where it was almost impossible to BE an illegal alien - there being essentially no limits at the time except for specifically and deliberately racist ones unfairly limiting immigration of some people such as asians.
The mere fact that the somewhat limited racist immigration laws of the past have been greatly expanded to discriminate against a broader group of "undesirables" hardly makes the protestations of those "law and order" types who desire compliance with the discriminatory laws shine in any sort of favoriable light.
Holy shit what a fucking liar you are, KoleTrain.
Then you are a dumbshit. The fucking NAACP, like La Raza, is not comparable to a white nationalist organization.
It is a simple fact that black people are victims of discrimination not just as poor people but specifically as black people, and in order to deal with this kind of discrimination, it is necessary for non-governmental organizations like the NAACP to focus on counteracting the disadvantages specifically faced by black people.
It is a simple fact that latino people are victims of discrimination not just as poor people but specifically as latino people, and in order to deal with this kind of discrimination, it is necessary for non-governmental organizations like La Raza to focus on counteracting the disadvantages specifically faced by latino people.
White people are not similarly disadvantaged in our society as a consequence of being white. There is no comparison.
If white people benefit from white privilege, and they do, then there is a white national identity.
Dumbass. Then all interests are special interests.
"But I don't have a voting bloc"
This is true. There's nary a political party in the land that focuses on catering to and preserving the in-equally greater privileges granted to white guys.
How is this relevant to the discussion? Unless you're a Native American living in Mexico there's no reason to bring this up.
It's a good question because racism in Mexico is NOT what we're discussing here.
That, too.
(/I'm also rather fond of Arundhati Roy's description: '...bits of coloured cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's brains and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead.')
I guess my bigotry is totally exposed now, bro. - KoleTrain
Hey! You managed to get something right! Well done!
#158
...in California.
#159
You're right, thanks.
#161
Various economic reasons: diversion of state resources; increased unionization, leading to further erosion of the state's fiscal situation, increased tax burden on corporations, leading to decreased employment, stuff like that.
RE: hole-digging - I kind of expected to get my hands dirty when plunging into a Pharyngula thread with an unpopular opinion. :-D
#163
I rarely get emotional about politics, but I guess it's more of a local issue here in California. Sure, the national debt is approaching catastrophic levels and the welfare state is nearing insolvency and that's probably a much bigger deal than illegal immigration or Latino national identity. But who says I can't support/oppose a bunch of political issues in my free time?
#160
Yeah. Anything with a lobby is a special interest. Some interests are specialer than others (Wall St., Big Defense, unions, etc.). My main complaint is organizing special interests based on ethnic identity. Unlike organizing around common interests, career goals, national policy interests, etc., using ethnicity as a rallying point seems contra-egalitarian to me.
@jafafahots #169
Republicans?
Sorry, I don't understand the connotation.
I don't buy that. As far as the statements here, even if the illegal immigrants where culturally diverse, and even of the same racial identity as Kole, but with a different perceived political agenda, he would be (from his words) just as opposed to them.
If I placed a bomb in a bus, and irrespective to my actual reasons for doing it, all the passengers were black, is that a racist crime?
@Koletrain
The best way to subvert 'voting blocs' is to actually integrate them. The "illegal immigrant" bloc will disappear as it is gradually absorbed into the rest of the society. At least thats how I assumed its happened for the germans, the dutch, the italians, the greeks etc. who have all at some points in American history been specific voting blocs.
Shorter: Holy shit, guys! The brown people are coming for my MONEY!!
Fuck you, Kole. Fuck you hard.
Not to be too pedantic about it or anything, but the U.S. flag-wearing kids should be informed they are in violation of the flag code, which prohibits the wearing of the U.S. flag as clothing, or on clothing, with very few exceptions.
If flag desecration were a crime, they'd be guilty.
So, why are the rednecks happy? If a hippy named Johnson did that stuff to their flag, they'd ask for a Constitutional Amendment to stop it.
Happy flag waving (remember Armed Forces Day this Saturday),
Ed Darrell
Nobody has a right *not* to be offended, and that includes Mexican Americans. There's no special "this is an anti-American holiday to us, so you can't be pro-American today" exemption to the First Amendment.
It really doesn't matter whether or not the kids wearing the American flag shirts were making a deliberate attempt to be provocative; no one should be prevented from making such a statement unless it was going to incite immediate violence (and then, I would point the finger of blame on those actually *doing* the violence, much more than the kids who support America). I can think of worse things than showing support for the country they are a part of.
Hell, May 5th isn't even a big deal in Mexico. It's more like Canadians throwing a big party every Arbor Day, drinking Budweiser and Coors and hanging light-up plastic Uncle Sams in the bars.
really? cuz I don't see anyone freaking out of protesting the Swedish, Finnish and Danish flags flying next to the Scandinavian Center here in town.
maybe because in the context of relations between WASPS and Latino Americans, that's precisely what the American flag has come to mean?
how the fuck is any of this relevant to the current discussion? Besides, the US never had a national language, never needed it, and wasn't even predominantly English-speaking for most of it's history. The predominance of a single language in the U.S. in the recent past is an exception, not the rule.
gee, might that have something to do with the fact that you're not center of the current anti-immigrant, racist-nativist uproar?
go look up "white privilege" you might learn something, and it might prevent you from saying such idiotic things in the future.
translation: "fuck you dirty immigrants for trying to actively lessen the gap created by white privilege!"
actually, multi-lingualism allows for better cooperation and greater access to services; the U.S. needs to become multi-lingual; establishing a national language is useless and counterproductive, and make the U.S. even more provincial because of it's current monolingual trend.
again, this is completely fucking irrelevant. there's no such thing as "better" or "worse" languages, but you've no right to declare yours as the one that everybody should be using.
"I'm colorblind" = "I will defend the status quo of racial privilege because it benefits me, and accuse those who fight against it of racism!"
liar. or clueless.
of course; brown people are ethnic people with ethnic interests, but white people are just people with interests. what crap.
why is this thread so full of fucking idiots?!
#167
The difference between lying and being mistaken is intent. If I believed that white ethnic identity existed in California but claimed otherwise, I would be a liar; if I was merely unaware of its presence and proclaimed its absence, I would be mistaken/ignorant.
I'm not sure how showing a list of hate-crimes demostrates that my statement is false, though. The majority of whites (myself included) would side with minority advocacy groups over racial terrorists any day of the week. This doesn't change the fact that Latinos have a voting bloc in California whereas whites do not.
I'll look at your other link later.
#169
That's a fair point, actually. Just because I despise a good half of their platform doesn't mean that I don't benefit from their policies. I think I benefit more from Republicans in California than Democrats, but that's because I'm private-sector/non-union. The implication, of course, is that the vast majority of people in the country have a voting bloc that votes in favor of their particular economic self-interests, regardless of whether the person in question votes that way or even agrees with that party. That seems a little cumbersome, but I see your point.
#174, I was being sarcastic.
But I've since reconsidered. Koletrain is right, he doesn't have a voting bloc.
While it's true, and he admits it, that he has privileges and benefits denied others, and while it's ALSO true that he has those advantages because every political party in the US has in the past, currently, and for the foreseeable future had as its main if not exclusive purpose the preservation of those unfair advantages and the exclusion of others from getting them... he differs with them on several policies and tactics on how best to preserve these unfair advantages. So he is not really represented, he has no voting bloc.
This therefore places him on an equal footing with those who have no advantages, who don't have them precisely due to the deliberate and perpetual design of the power structure, and who thus have no true voting bloc of any power.
Brothers in arms, they are.
Maybe they aren't, but I am. Damned Norsks are too doofy to admit how good they had it under us'n Swedes. The blue-and-gold hordes are just biding our time....
@ #176
Ah, but KoleTrain is arguing that it's really:
"Holy shit, guys! They're coming for my MONEY!!! AND, they happened to be organized and brown simulataneously, which is wrong!"
Which is TOTALLY different, so he says.
I'm still not sure if the being organized or the brown that he objects more to.
Why reward him?[/dirty old man]
#154
"Hey, there. I'll have you know that as a white middle class male, I'm an expert on privilege."
We of the upper classes find your claims of expertise...amusing. ;)
On a more serious note: While I am a Hugo Black fundamentalist on freedom of speech, I find the behavior of the kids in question here (or, perhaps, their parents) reprehensible for a different reason than most people have said.
I used to wear orange regularly on St. Patrick's Day -- though I started it in high school, as a misguided Scots Pride matter, I continued it for several years after I met a Chicago politician who was proud of her funding connections, funneling money to the IRA.
I stopped, because I did not want to be deliberately provocative any more.
One of the following two statements is true: Either the Morgan Hill 5 (I can't tell if that sounds more like a '60s protest group or a very old-school rap group) knew what they were doing might be offensive, and chose to do it -- or they didn't.
If they did, and when called upon it stood their ground, then the situation is murky, and unless/until there's a lawsuit and we find out what the principal may have heard from students of Mexican descent, we don't know what might have been going on. But I have to grant a small modicum of respect to the firmness of their beliefs, even if I cannot justify them.
If they chose to do it deliberately, and then when confronted, denied it, they're cowards deserving of no respect.
If they didn't choose to do it deliberately, then, when called on it, they decided that not wearing their shirts inside-out was more important than their classmates' feelings on a special day -- and they are deserving of the same amount of respect for their own feelings, which is to say -- none.
go look up "white privilege" you might learn something, and it might prevent you from saying such idiotic things in the future.
shhhhhhh. Whitey don't wanna believe he got privilege.
There are legitimate reasons for opposing the influx of Hispanic immigrants: employment, national security, strain on local and state governments, etc. However, the children of Hispanic immigrants, legal or otherwise, are entirely outside the issue- it's not like they made the choice to immigrate! If these students have legitimate grievances with American immigration policy, they should direct their anger at the parties that actually have agency, instead of at fellow students trying to pass math and save up for a limo at prom. I don't think the school handled the issue properly, but I also think that the message the offending students were trying to convey was both ignorant and inflammatory. In order to preserve order, the school was legally correct. I think, however, a stern talking-to about the very difficult plight of immigrant students (lack of access to higher education due to poverty and legal status, institutional racism ala Arizona, etc), would have properly shamed the students into voicing their opinions in a more appropriate venue.
if buses were the primary form of transportations for blacks, and primarily used by blacks, then yes; because you're structurally doing damage to one race*, thus disadvantaging them more than another.
Racism is about effects, not about motivations or thoughts, because we can't read or measure people's thoughts; we can only measure the effects of their words and actions and make assessments based on that.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
*race is real, but it's a social construct, not a biological one.
I'll assume you were trying to be funny, but you failed. Regardless, I have heard that some of the most vociferous opponents to amnesty for illegal immigrants are recent legal immigrants. You "jumped through all the hoops" and dealt with all the obstacles the INS puts in place making it so difficult to immigrate to the US. Granting amnesty is seen as "cutting in line" and it is angering to see others get something for "free" that you worked so hard for. I understand that, but I think the anger should be more properly directed at the hoops you had to jump through than the people getting around them. And also what superficially looks like a "free pass" is nothing of the sort. The life of an illegal immigrant is no bed of roses. I'm sure that while you were diligently waiting for that green card you had a nice paying job writing code in a comfy little office and not standing around the local Home Depot hoping someone will hire you to put shingles on their roof.
@jafafahots
Sorry, the irony-meter died for a bit. I had to go replace the batteries.
You're free to do support/oppose whatever you want and I'm free to say you're acting like a bully by picking on immigrants who have done you no harm. If you wish to spend your time doing that rather than countering real problems than so be it.
#182:
SWEEEEEEEDES! *shakes fist!*
#183:
Well, it seems that according to this fucktard, being brown leads to being organized. 'Cos us whites, you know, we're way too diverse to ever have a bloc.
You're right, IB, I shouldn't have waved my sexuality in poor poor Kole's face like that, either. How about this instead:
Kole, you are a vile, selfish little man with no grasp on reality. I hope you choke on a burrito and some burly Mexican-American EMT saves your worthless life.
I must be getting old. Nobody waves their sexuality in my face anymore. :(
Hell, May 5th isn't even a big deal in Mexico.
No shit. How is that fact relevant?
@dr-rieux
Ha! You Scandahoovians are so silly! Good thing that us Germans would never try to assert our superiority over other nationalities.
re 175:
".ne." old computer code for "not equal", meaning racist and bigot are not synonymous though there is a huge overlap. "bigots" tend to be a "superset" of racist; discrimiating not just by race but by ethnicity, sex, political affiliation, sexual orientation or any number of other ways of grouping.
"If they didn't choose to do it deliberately, then, when called on it, they decided that not wearing their shirts inside-out was more important than their classmates' feelings on a special day -- and they are deserving of the same amount of respect for their own feelings, which is to say -- none."
imnotandrei, today is my birthday and my name is Andrei. It offends me to see people declare that their name is not Andrei on my birthday. Please refrain from commenting today, out of respect for my feelings. BTW if you don't refrain in order to spare my feelings your hostility to my intolerance does not deserve any respect.
re 178:
If this were any place but a school I would agree with you. Somewhere further up the thread Rev. Big Dumb Chimp posted the "Tinker Test" that allows 1st amendment protections to be suspended in a school setting to maintain an orderly environment. Perhaps this principal knows a little more about the volatility of his students than we do and believed that confrontation was probable. Maybe not, the point is that I disagree that we can just shout "1st amendment" to condemn the principal's actions.
#175
All good points - I agree. Furthermore, I don't exactly have a strong preference for my own ethnic group.
#181
I was privileged to be born into a family that instilled in me the values and material resources necessary to succeed. This would not matter if I were white, brown, yellow, or black. I'm certainly privileged, but I don't think this is a result of me being white. I went to a mostly-Asian high school, a very diverse university, and currently work at an even more diverse company.
#183
Being organized as a result of being brown, with the primary intention of improving brown in-group status relative to the out-group.
#188
Trying is the first step to failure, I'm told.
This country needs immigration reform, including sealing the border, a guest worker program, and some sort of gradual amnesty process for the people here with visas as rewards for good behavior and taking steps toward assimilation. Mass deportation is not a viable solution, but neither is ignoring the problem of illegal alien criminality.
#183/191
Thanks for summing up my views for me. Since I love talking about myself, I'll address 191's accusations. Vile - maybe, but the Axe effect helps; selfish - yes, but also altruistic; little - average, thank you :-); no grasp on reality - none whatsoever. Burritos - love 'em, especially lingua with extra salsa.
The Trophy Wife™ is half Norwegian, half Swedish. I'm 1/4 Norwegian, 1/4 Swedish, one half mongrel Dutch/English/Scot/Irish/whatever. I think that means we have to wage war on each other constantly.
but I don't think this is a result of me being white
Then you have no clue about the United States.
and how does this make you suddenly not white? because the only way to not have white privilege is to not be white.
#200/201
My point is that I came to this country at an early age and it's likely that my level of success would have been the same: accepted to the same schools, same jobs, etc. I'm saying that if those non-white people were able to get into those schools/jobs, how exactly is being white helping me?
A caveat: I live in San Francisco/Bay Area. So white privilege is probably pretty substantial in other parts of the country, whereas it's mostly absent (at least from an employment/schooling point of view) here.
How is this any different to the Mo pictures of a few thrads ago?
translation: "you'll have to pry my white privilege from my cold dead hands".
right; and having a black president means there is no more racism.
just how fucking clueless are you?
#204
Extremely, apparently. You haven't really answered my question, though.
Except on your block.
Oh. So, you're saying you've never noticed that you've been treated differently than other people on the basis of your skin colour?
That's how being white helps you.
@Epictetus, #143?
In infrared, the border between the north Mexican desert and the verdant golf courses of San Diego is a remarkably clean line.
Not to critique the sentiment.
@PZ Myers, #150?
Of course, these are their communities, too.
@barfy, #153?
?My heart is in the right place, but fuck I'm stupid.?
@Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad, #170?
Please, think of the white guys. Who will speak for them?
@KoleTrain, #198?
Riding right on past the part where you regard establishing a police state as unacceptable because it's just too much work? what problem?
you've already proven yourself to be innumerate, so explaining a partially statistical argument to you seems like a waste of my time. So let me just say that the existence of successful members of any minority is not an argument for non-existence of privilege for members of the dominant culture; at best, it's an argument that the privilege isn't absolute, but no one has been arguing that anyway.
More racist and more clueless by the hour.
They don't have racism in San Francisco! Seriously.
Jesus Christ - it's a fucking flag - and the US flag at that - what's offensive? The Cinco de Mayo doesn't even have anything to do with the USA. There's something wrong with the goddamned principal if he thinks little dipshits wearing US flags printed all over them is offensive; he should have ignored them like most people would have. Besides, throwing the kids out gets rid of any opportunity for others to laugh at them and tell them they're morons. Any bets the idiots who are offended by these kids wearing a US flag would also be offended by those folks who burn the flag?
Of course he wouldn't notice. It's the rare person who actively notices that they aren't being treated unfairly, and that they don't have obstacles thrown in their way; most people think that's normal. Hence the insidiousness of white/male/straight/etc. prejudice.
Well, I differ with you, PZ, on the meaning of being rude. Sometimes, people just won't listen until you put a mirror in front of them, and sometimes you have to give them a bit of a jolt to get them to start looking into it. I don't have a problem with being rude for any reason as long as it isn't just rudeness. I want the outcome to be constructive in some way even if it hurts. I've done that here at times when I detect people so full of themselves that they think everyone should be as holier-than-thou as they are.
What I don't agree with these boys on is why they did what they did. It wasn't just that they were being jerks; lots of people are jerks. In fact, just about everyone is a jerk at some point. No, what they did was destructive and intended to sow discord more than it was to say something useful. They even admitted to that. That's not free speech - that's being a complete ass for the sake of being an ass.
white/male/straight/etc. prejudice privilege.
clearly, I need more coffee.
Nor homophobia. I mean, Harvey Milk got elected as city supervisor, so how does being heterosexual help anyone?
National security? Please explain.
Employment? Aaaah, good old European-style xenophobia! Almost all poor immigrants, illegal ones especially, do jobs that are very poorly paid and that few or no citizens would do. That's why they immigrated in the first place.
You should learn a bit about the history of guest worker programs in Europe...
So you don't find it offensive when white racists harass Mexican immigrants for being Mexican.
Thanks for letting us know how you feel.
#208
OK. We are arguing past each other. I'm not denying that white privilege exists. I'm saying that my particular scenario would likely have turned out the same had I been non-white. I'll concede that this is probably due to the unique set of circumstances in my life. This began as a discussion about whether I was privileged and why. I think that on the grand scale of privilege, the privilege of having hard-working/supportive parents who made the decision to immigrate to this country and who instilled in me the values I live by was a far greater contributor to my level of success than being white. I would wager that this is true of a majority of successful people, but I don't actually have the numbers obviously.
You're like a white rainbow....
Using the flag as a sort of symbol for "BE LIKE US NOT YOU"
Perhaps I should change my name to "He who jousts with strawmen", but...
You know, if I was in an environment where people named Andrei had been discriminated against, systematically, for a long time, and someone told me my username was offensive for that reason, I'd change it. Because it's less important to me that I have that username than that I not come across as an insensitive nitwit.
Congratulations; you've just proven that my position does not hold when taken to ridiculous lengths by someone looking for offense. ;) You will, I hope, understand that I am not terribly impressed.
:-) I'll steal that. After all, it describes myself. :-)
The best part is you don't even realize that your parents were allowed to move here because they were white.
that's possible, since some people are lucky instead of privileged; that doesn't negate the existence of white privilege, nor that you are benefiting from it in ways that are invisible to you.
because brown immigrants and black natives aren't hard-working and supportive, and that explains why they're less likely to succeed.[/sarcasm]
you'd be wrong. success is almost entirely determined by the number of privileged groups you happen to belong to (moderated by above average luckiness), which is why in America, the most successful people are predominantly white straight christian men, and multiple-minorities are almost negligibly rare at the very top. The more minority groups you belong to, the more obstacles you have to overcome on a daily basis to just draw even with those of the dominant culture, even if we assumed an equal starting point.
Git yur hands off mah Rainbow flagg!!!eleventy!!
Ah. Other whites/males/etc. are privileged due to their skin colour or sex, but you're the deserving exception because you worked harder than those lazy Hispanics.
If this entire incident isn't the proverbial "tempest in a teapot"; I don't what what is.
Anyhow, "strange gods before me" @ $216: You're response to the blockquote from MadScientist's post makes no sense to me. Please enlighten.
@#8, #22, #26, #49 et al.
The Supreme Court already ruled in seevral cases that students surrender free speech not only on school grounds but during school hours off-grounds. It sucks but that's the precedent.
@94.You're making up your own story, bulb-bright. This isn't about offended students. The principal was just trying to avoid attention, being non-versed in the Streisand effect. So he sent them home.
The hammer and sickle analogy is non-sensical (unless you were in the CCCP at the time).
PZ:
"Oh, and those of you who are whining that they were just wearing American flags and we ought to be allowed to wear American flags and they didn't mean nothin' by wearing American flags...toughen up. Be brave. Go ahead and admit you just don't like them Mexicans."
But why insist that the American flag automatically carries negative connotations? If I wear blue on St Patricks day, what do I MEAN by it? It's all up to the perceiver : the message is blatant if you hold intricate preconceptions. Is the American flag now automatically a symbol of agression on any one particular day of the year? As for pointing this out, the kids were (accidentally, sure but) provocative. Almost dada.
But in the end, fuck symbolism.
KoleTrain:
...illegal alien criminality
That's the bigotry right there. The equating of illegal immigration with criminality. But isn't it a crime to be here illegally? No, I don't think it is actually a "crime" to be here illegally. One is not tried and thrown in jail, simply deported.
I'm not denying that white privilege exists. I'm saying that my particular scenario would likely have turned out the same had I been non-white.
Just keep telling yourself that. It may be true, but there is really no way for you to know that for sure. You really have no way of knowing what happened to non-whites in similar circumstances.
I just don't get this stuff about being 1/4 of this and 1/4 of that - Swedish left arm, Norwegian right arm, Czech torso, Estonian legs, and maybe German balls? Those statements apportioning humans to different cultural groups just never made any sense to me.
Obviously can't expect a goddam yankee from Meen-a-sota to fix shit. "Y'all and y'all's goddam fuckin' flags!" Now it's fixed! (Born and bred in AL and left as soon as I goddam could!)
This is of course not a serious request, but I'm feeling generous.
MadScientist says that only hypersensitive people would be offended by these kids taunting and harassing Mexican American students. MadScientist therefore is not offended by these kids taunting and harassing Mexican American students.
It's a shame. Whenever one of these threads comes around, there's lots of potential for interesting discussion, but it gets lost because some ignorant honky comes around to tell us how he's "not racist, BUT [something racist]".
Freakin' honky.
OMG I can't go to sleep without coming back and have these threads already up to the 200's.
I agree with Brownian about the flags. I'm sure I've told this story before but in my workplace there is a very old guy who has to put up the US and California flags in the poles. One time (cause he's very old), he just laid the US one on the floor while he was working on the other one. We got a complaint from someone who saw it. This person was just passing by. Who goes out of their way to do that to an old guy?
Nigel (almost) mentioned the "goddamn cracker" above (#19) in comparison. I pretty much agree. Chauvinistic nationalism (and I wonder if there's another type) seems to me like another arbitrary way of discriminating people.
Illegal aliens did not take the jobs.
Most of the middle class jobs were sent overseas by filthy rich white corporate CEOs and board members and majority shareholders who looked around, decided they weren't quite filthy rich and privileged enough, realized that the blame for them not having ALL the money was those pesky anti-slavery, anti-child labor, workplace safety, minimum wage and overtime pay laws, and decided to move everything to where they were free to use underpaid, overworked, exploited, harassed, endangered, and even enslaved workers.
Millions of "illegals" were perfectly happy in Mexico farming corn. Then we in the US decided to pass NAFTA (to enrich the rich) which, when combined with corn subsidies (designed to enrich the rich like Monsanto, etc.) put them out of work by the millions.
What happens to millions of out of work, hungry people? Oddly enough, they become eager to try to FIND work.
At that time, a savior came along. Swift meat packing company.
In the 50s or so, working at Swift was a good deal, well paying, good benefits, union job. That of course just wouldn't do! So they union busted and turned it into a dangerous grinding job that wore people out. Oddly enough Americans weren't too keen on working themselves to death for pennies.
So seeing the millions of unemployed desperate Mexicans, Swift ran ads looking for workers. THEY RAN THE ADS IN MEXICO. Interesting, that.
Then then arranged for buses to bring the workers from Mexico to the US.
They also cut a deal with INS to hand over about 15 "illegal aliens" a month so that the INS wouldn't give them any shit for luring all the others and employing them. It also turned out to be a handy way to get rid of those few Mexicans who got fed up with risking their lives to make pennies.
THAT is who is to blame. Rich white assholes. NOT the immigrants they deliberately lured in to exploit and then toss away like trash.
Rich white assholes create the problem on purpose to feed their sociopathic gluttony, and then rich white assholes blame their victims for the resulting problems. And poor and middle-class white racists, also their victims, lap up the lies because it feels better to hate the different-looking person than to confront the REAL villains and risk your neighbors calling you a liberal or a commie.
Well, I never! How dare you call me a honky! I am insulted to the core! Insulted, I tell you!
Takes his ball and goes home crying...
#222
Are you sure about that?
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/immigration-us.html
The number of illegal immigrants attempting to come into the United States has continuously increased. In addition, the number of legal immigrants admitted into the country has reached new highs. It is estimated that legal immigration in the 1990s surpassed the levels of the last previous peak of legal immigration from 1901 to 1910. During that time period nearly 9 million legal immigrants were allowed into the United States. From the period of 1968 to 1993, it is estimated that 16.7 million immigrants entered the country legally. Of these 16.7 million legal immigrants, nearly 85% were from developing countries. This percentage is composed of nearly 50% legal immigrants that came from the Caribbean and Latin America and about a third that came from Asia. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s some illegal immigrants in the U.S. have benefited from immigration policies that have granted amnesty, created a system for refugees, and have raised the quotas for the number of legal immigrants allowed. The number of legal immigrants allowed is anywhere from 700,000 to 900,000 on an annual basis.
Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez was in one of those damned if you do and damned if you don’t situations. He was dammed for requiring that the American flag wearing students turn their shirts inside out or take a free cut day at home.
Had he not done so there was a real possibility that those flag wearing provocateurs would get an ass whooping at the hands of the Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage. But let’s say that he ignored the situation and a fight ensued. He would have had the same parents who griped about discrimination against patriotic Americans suing him for not doing something that would have protected their boys from unruly Mexicans.
"Had he not done so there was a real possibility that those flag wearing provocateurs would get an ass whooping at the hands of the Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage."
Yeah, those latin types and their hot tempers. Anything could have happened, you can't taunt those people.
No fair! It's a lot more fun to pick on defenseless immigrants who speak funny and are different from me than those rich white asshole can defend themselves very well.
Also, I am a rich white asshole who is about to buy a wealthy company...err, okay medium sized company,....err, okay I'm an unlicensed plumber who's mentioned owning the company with his boss once a few years ago. But I'll be rich I tells ya.....if only it wasn't for those damn Mexicans!
This is one of your beefs? [b]Fuck you!
By the way, not only the "Mexicans" scoff at it. All the other, you know, Americans (including South Americans, Central Americans and North Americans — don't know about Canada), do it too.
I'm not offended by it. I'm disgusted at the crass behavior of these kids and the fact that their parents raised them like this (or worse, that they are more like their friends than their parents), but I am not offended. Frankly, I am white and lower middle-class. My family has been established around here for some time, and there is no way I could be mistaken for "foreign," if that were somehow possible in my mind. I would have to re-cast this issue into sexual orientation for it to have any personal impact on me because it simply would not enter my mind to behave in such a fashion.
In fact, I think I would have to be oversensitive to be offended by this, and it would likely be offensive to the victims of this situation if I were. I am almost positive that they would think: "What's this white guy who has no real connection to the issue doing acting like he understands what it's like?"
So, disgusted, most assuredly, that anyone calling himself a human being could act like such a loser. But I am not offended because I have no reason to be.
Well the <b> fail actually led to a similarly interesting bolding.
And now I have a "Rainbow In The Dark" earworm!
Thanks!
Born in Ohio, my family moved to Michigan when I was 5 years old. If you're from the area, you know how big college football is there. Ohio State creamed U of M, one year when I was in high school. On Monday, I proudly wore an Ohio State t-shirt. Should I have been sent home to change for being a provocative jerk?
Would wearing a gold cross necklace on the Winter Solstice be hate speech? What about to an Atheist convention?
Were any of these flag-wearing students female? I wonder if none of the "offending" students were male, would it have created an issue?
By the school making such a big deal about it, they only managed to give them even more attention. Ironically, the behavior was rewarded.
Interesting dialog on this particular topic! So many of these comments contain abusive hate speech with violent overtones!
("F-u, Kole. F-u, hard!") It's ok as long as it's said to someone who can be condemned as a racist bigot.
At least the Tea-Parties use PG-13 language and don't stoop to sexually explicit references and vulgar insults. The name-calling and profanity comes from the left, i.e. "tea-baggers".
For the record, I really have no opinion on this event, since obviously there's more to this story that we may never know. The 1st amendment doesn't apply to high school dress codes. It means you don't go to jail for saying something unpopular, not a guarantee there will be no reaction.
SteveM@195
Fair enough, although I would think bigotry implies an emphasis on being "anti-them", rather than "pro-me", which is what Kole came off as.
(my emphasis)
I don't know about German, but Swedish meat balls had to enter the country somehow
jafafahots@234
You wouldn't sound so much like a turd if you just said Rich assholes and were done with it. Not all rich assholes are white. Not all rich whites are assholes. Rapacious greed is colorblind. When you start fulminating about "Rich white assholes" you become just one more bigot. Other than that your analysis is spot on.
@ jafafahots #234
The timing of your tale doesn't make sense to me.
"While the Mexican-born population in the United States has grown substantially since 1990, the undocumented population from Mexico has increased even faster. The 1990 Census included 4.3 million immigrants from Mexico. By 2000, this population more than doubled to 9.2 million with a further increase to 9.8 million in 2002. The undocumented population from Mexico increased from two million in 1990 to 4.8 million in 2000 and to 5.3 million in 2002. Thus, between 1990 and 2002, the undocumented population from Mexico increased by about 250,000 to 300,000 per year on average; evidence from successive CPSs suggests that the annual inflows increased dramatically around 1997 or 1998. "
from http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=208
NAFTA was ratified in january of 1994. But this source says the rate increased dramatically around '97 or '98. If NAFTA is to blame, why didn't it happen in '95 or '96?
like I said, totally innumerate.
what's the proportion of applicants from Europe that gets accepted, and what's the proportion of applicants from developing countries that gets accepted? similarly, do you really think that white immigrants have to jump through the same hurdles as non-whites? I fucked up my application on multiple levels, and still got in/didn't get kicked out. If I were anything other than middle-class European white, I'd have been booted at the first fuckup.
At least the Tea-Parties use PG-13 language and don't stoop to sexually explicit references and vulgar insults. The name-calling and profanity comes from the left, i.e. "tea-baggers".
Dumbass, they chose the name themselves.
Thanks for clearing that up. I mistakenly assumed the opposite from your decision to post a relatively lengthy comment on it.
So you're trying to take KoleTrain's jobs!
"You wouldn't sound so much like a turd if you just said Rich assholes and were done with it. Not all rich assholes are white. Not all rich whites are assholes. Rapacious greed is colorblind. When you start fulminating about "Rich white assholes" you become just one more bigot. Other than that your analysis is spot on."
I'm sorry, I beg your forgiveness.
In my blatant racism, I totally overlooked all of the many, many rich minority assholes in the power structure, serving as senators drafting legislation, serving as US Presidents signing legislation, and serving as CEOs of Monsanto and Swift and ConAgra instigating and profiting from these crimes.
All of those non-white CEOs and US Presidents and such are totally to blame too.
Actually the more one is educated in language you'll see that there's less aversion to "dirty" words. The people who think using such "vulgarities" is "stooping" are usually the church lady types (or church men, but that wasn't a SNL character).
(Because, as was previously made clear, there just isn't white privilege in this country. There are just as many non-white privileged people running things. Hell, probably MORE. You know how those types are.)
See #248, KoleTrain.
Rather than guessing from raw entry numbers without considering the number of applicants, I have studied immigration policy.
The United States' immigration policy is racist today and has been racist for as long as the USA has existed. This was overt and perfectly obvious to everyone as recently as 1978, when the Western and Eastern immigration ceilings were finally combined; prior to that, immigration from Western nations was overtly preferred.
But racist policies didn't end in 1978. They just became more subtle. Would you have guessed that right now, today, we still have preferences for white visa applicants?
@Gus #3: Yeah, and I still see a lot of tattered flags still flying. The folks flying it are all very keen on flying the flag, but they don't have enough money to replace the flags frequently enough, and I'm the bad guy for educating them about our flag handling traditions. I don't know of anyone who prosecutes people for flying a tattered flag though. Most people don't even know the tradition for disposing of flags - they toss 'em in the garbage. You're supposed to fold it a certain way and then burn it (though how you can fold a tattered flag in the appropriate fashion is beyond me) and there is even an aversion to using more modern gizmos for burning the flag such as lighters - the purists use a piece of clean paper burning, a match which had flared off the incendiary chemical, or a burning piece of wood. Such peculiar rituals.
"But this source says the rate increased dramatically around '97 or '98. If NAFTA is to blame, why didn't it happen in '95 or '96?"
I dunno. From that, you'd almost get the impression that the economic effects took time to have their complete effect, that the people losing their jobs actually tried to make a go of it for a while, that they actually may have had some reluctance to leave the land of their birth and their culture and where generations of their ancestors had farmed and lived. That instead of running at the first opportunity, they waited until they were desperate and saw no other choice.
We know THAT can't be true, because it's a well established fact that they were actually slavering with anticipation for the first opportunity to ditch their lives and reconquer the the Southwest and stand around in the Home Depot parking lot.
So, Robert H.
What exactly do you take issue with, the fact that the vast majority of these people are white men, or the fact that they got into their positions of power because they are white men?
I dunno about whether or not you have to wage war against each other (is there much animosity between the scandanavians and the Brits/Dutch - assuming your Norwegian/Swedish bits cancel), but it sure as hell sounds like you should be waging a constant war against yourself.
Although with the Dutch perhaps you stay mellow enough to not gang up on the English part.
Oh goody! This is my favorite. I'm a dual Italian/American citizen who was born shortly after my parents (who married in Italy) moved to the US (back to, in the case of my father, who is Italian-American and met my mother, who is just Italian, while living in Rome), and grew up in both countries, bilingual, multi-cultural, etc. I spent the last four years living exclusively in Italy and have just relocated to the UK (just in time to see a conservative government take power. ho-hum). Somehow, the fact that I am fluent in Italian does not cause me to forget how to speak English, or vice versa, nor does my picture on my American passport fade when I speak Italian, or vice versa.
I also don't have any illusions about how ridiculously fucking lucky I have been. I experienced a bit of racism/bigotry when I lived in West Virginia, but if I'm being honest it was more about my not being particularly well-liked and my ethnic background being used as an extra weapon in the hate ME campaign, than it was about my being a dirty wop/dago/etc, as my sister was not given the same treatment. Mostly I'm just considered white. Whatever.
I just LOVE a few things that always come up in these discussions:
1. But they speak SPANISH. That means they want everyone else to speak SPANISH. Because if they spoke ENGLISH they wouldn't continue to speak SPANISH. Because people who learn new languages immediately forget their old ones. Always. Failure to do so is disrespectful to the new language. Also, two languages can't possibly fit in one head.
2. _I_ am a good, upstanding, contributing member of society and so were all my ancestors, including the immigrants. They were the GOOD kind of immigrant. Not like today's immigrants. TODAY's immigrants are rubbishy, lazy, dirty people who want to steal our freedom/jobs/children. (See also: When my people immigrated to X country, they worked hard and were good, but all these immigrants to MY country are bad.)
I have a cousin of sorts on my father's side (her grandfather and mine were brothers, and either immigrated to the US as children or were born there shortly after their parents went over). Not too long ago this cousin joined that facebook group "This is America. We shouldn't have to press 1 for English." I was, understandably, surprised. Then again, I have a much closer relationship with Italy than she does, thanks to my mother's side and my own upbringing. Still, I have great difficulty understanding the "lock the door behind me and mine" approach to immigration policy. Maybe I'm just not enough of a hypocrite.
I also don't get this whole objection to people being all bilingual up in America's grill. Being offended by the existence of other languages is just...baffling. I can't believe I actually read a sentence about how it's fine for people to speak Spanish in their HOMES, BUT... sort of like a don't ask, don't tell approach to languages. Who was that, barfy? What a precious little snowflake.
Anyway... Kole person: as a fellow white-ish immmigrant's offspring who enjoyed a relatively privileged stay in the US, I'm pretty offended by your complete lack of empathy towards people who weren't lucky enough to be the "right" kind of immigrant. See...I don't have to directly benefit from the fair treatment of minority groups to think it's a good idea, because I'm not a dick. Novel concept.
"We know THAT can't be true, because it's a well established fact that they were actually slavering with anticipation for the first opportunity to ditch their lives and reconquer the the Southwest and stand around in the Home Depot parking lot."
Good point jafafahots, anyone who needs actual facts to believe what you say is clearly just a racist. Color me convinced.
"Good point jafafahots, anyone who needs actual facts to believe what you say is clearly just a racist. Color me convinced."
Go to the PBS website. Watch the documentary "Food, Inc." It has the actual facts I recited here.
It gives the actual statistics about farming job destruction in Mexico after NAFTA. It shows the actual advertisements Swift used to lure illegal workers. It shows buses they shipped them in on.
It shows undercover camera footage of the immigrant workers in the plant. It interviews former workers who confirm it all. It shows footage of the staged INS raids on union-organizing immigrants.
There's all of the documentation you need.
But what exactly are you objecting to? The fact that there was a 2 year gap between passage of NAFTA and most obvious indicators of its worst effects?
THAT is your fucking objection? THAT'S why you can't believe?
You think it would only make sense if the rush over the border was instantaneous?
Are you fucking kidding me?
For me, it's the people who have immigrated here, legally or otherwise, have been here for several years, and still haven't learned to be conversational in English - nor have they really tried. I'm not offended by it - in fact, I am more concerned that they aren't adjusting to life in a different country and are really just making it hard on themselves by not learning the predominant language around them. It makes me wonder if they are possibly having issues that need to be addressed. Like, oh, being treated like shit because they look "foreign" or something.
jafafahots,
the reason I thought it didn't make sense is because I would have expected a "dramatic" increase in immigration from economic collapse to take a year and a half to register, rather than three or four years. Why in 97 or 98 and not sooner? I brought the issue up because I was hoping you had an answer, not a sheen of arrogance so thick you couldn't fathom someone not instantly agreeing with you. Guess what? There's room for debate in cause and effect in economic matters. Thank you for finally condescending to show your sources.
strangegodsbeforeme@258
My issue is with rich assholes irrespective of their ethnicity or their gender. To bring either gender or ethnicity up deflects from the issue at hand. That "they" are perceived or portrayed exclusively as white plays into yet another racist agenda. I have no quibble with your observation that the vast majority are white but that will change over the next few decades as wealth migrates away from America. Do you think the next batch of darker-skinned plutocrats will not be assholes?
@laurasaurus #244
The "tea-bagger" epithet was started by the tea-baggers themselves. They're just too embarrassed to admit it.
Anyone with any sort of law back ground care to comment on the SCOTUS ruling in the Tinker case I pointed to in comment #59 that gave us the Tinker Test for these types of instances?
Does this instance pass the test? Were the flag t-shirts enough to "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school"
"increase in immigration from economic collapse to take a year and a half to register, rather than three or four years. Why in 97 or 98 and not sooner?
You're not measuring from the economic collapse, you're measuring from the passage of NAFTA. That would assume that immediately after the passage not only would all of corporations have made instant adjustments to their supply chains and business models, but that the effects would have followed immediately and the collapse also.
Takes a couple of years or so for a change to make farmers realize their about to lose everything, I should think.
If my response was intemperate, it's because I haven't slept, but also mainly because this thread is filled with responses from people arguing that the fact that there's white privilege doesn't meant that that has resulted in white privilege and other such bullshit, and I lumped you in with them, sorry.
I'd say so, by their own admission. They said they had done it just to offend them by being "patriotic".
Robert H,
It's primarily white people who are railing against teh Darkie Invasion. It is a race issue whether they know they mean it or not. It's pretty fair to point out that the people who have actually done much more damage to the economy are mostly in Teh Whitey camp.
Also, being white is already awesome. They don't get offended.
I agree
"My issue is with rich assholes irrespective of their ethnicity or their gender. To bring either gender or ethnicity up deflects from the issue at hand."
That's nice that that's your issue. Have fun with that. It just happens to be a deflection and a dodge from the issue everyone else was discussing, which is the fact that US society is controlled by and based on white privilege and racist policies are a result of that.
"That "they" are perceived or portrayed exclusively as white plays into yet another racist agenda."
In discussing racism perpetrated by whites, portraying them as whites plays into racism. Gotcha. You know, I think you may actually have a solution there! When discussing the problem of a racially stratified society, eliminate all references to race. Holy shit, problem is suddenly gone!
"I have no quibble with your observation that the vast majority are white but that will change over the next few decades as wealth migrates away from America. Do you think the next batch of darker-skinned plutocrats will not be assholes?"
Now that's a nifty theory. A racist society in which some are favored over others and racist acts result, inequities result, racist legislation results... is all not worth discussing because someday, somehow, minorities will take power despite the oppression currently leveled against them, and then THEY will be the oppressors. So it's not fair to complain about the people oppressing them now.
Basically what you've done is decide to have an entirely different conversation with yourself about an entirely different subject than the rest of us, and then chide us for not following your diversionary thread.
Sorry, no thanks.
Robert H,
We may be largely in agreement. I personally believe, from experience having a lot of these conversations, that arbitrarily bringing up rich folks' gender or skin color is generally counterproductive. Not because it's wrong, but only because it practically invites derailment of the discussion. Someone who dislikes or misunderstands discussion of white privilege will inevitably come along and say something like 'When you start fulminating about "Rich white assholes" you become just one more bigot.' And then it gets more difficult to make progress as everyone's defenses are raised.
The fact of white privilege is necessary to understand how people become rich or poor. But perhaps not every single discussion of wealth disparity needs to investigate how people become rich or poor.
I guess I would say that calling them "rich white assholes" is probably not instructive, as it can be misunderstood to mean that they're being condemned because they're white. That would be wrong, and bigoted. But I don't think that's what jafafahots was doing.
In my fantasies, when we observe how skin color influences wealth and poverty, we would always follow that with a discussion of how to undo that influence, rather than just leaving it as an observation.
you know that hate speech is not at all the issue here, right?
I'm sure you're also aware that most people here agree the kids didn't need to be sent home.
To answer the question, no. Dick move, maybe.
No. It could be a dick move though.
Ah, of course. I totally forgot that racist bullshit isn't vulgar insults!
Depends on the students, I suspect. If they break out in race-oriented fights a lot, though..
To me, as I said above, the issue is not so much about how those people got into power because of white privilege or not.
The issue is that those people who have fucked up the economy the most are white. They're full blown American citizens too, for the most part. It's a good point to bring up when the good citizens of Amurica start complaining about Mexicans fucking up the economy by, you know, working 80 hours a week.
@ #198
Well, that confirms it. You're a dumbass and a douche.
Good job.
"You're not measuring from the economic collapse, you're measuring from the passage of NAFTA. That would assume that immediately after the passage not only would all of corporations have made instant adjustments to their supply chains and business models, but that the effects would have followed immediately and the collapse also.
Takes a couple of years or so for a change to make farmers realize their about to lose everything, I should think."
Good point. I guess I was assuming that given the amount of money pumped into US agribusiness the change on the supply end would be rather sudden. I wonder what role the peso's collapse played, as well. But I will have to watch this Food, Inc. first.
This is pretty much perfect. :)
re 240:
Well, what should we call ourselves? We are the only country with "America" in the name. Canadians are Canadians, people in Brazil are Brazilians, etc. What are residents of the U.S.A?
re 279:
Canadians are Canadians,...
<sigh> you know what I meant.
In Spanish there's estadounidense. I personally don't care and use "American" myself cause it's a convention. But in Spanish it sounds kinda bad to refer to Americans as "Americanos". My point was that what the other guy was saying is a petty complaint about "Mexicans", and if you're gonna go there, the "other" Americans are in the right.
Oh well...
Seems a few threads over people were discussing Ken Ham and his ludicrous conception of "race", at which time everybody (except for a few assorted trolls) appeared content to all hold hands and acknowledge we're just one big happy family of man. Now we seem to be positing a multiracial view of humanity. Hmm... Yeah, I know: they're not really the same thing...
It's true-most of the rich assholes in this country are white, but not all. I know that we are a "racially" polarized society, but not everybody allows themselves to follow the herd. I know that a vast amount of money is invested in ensuring the maintenance of the status quo, but not everybody who is rich agrees or participates. I am disgusted by the economic realities of this country, by our hypocrisy when we trundle out the "land of the free and the home of the brave", the "give us your tired, your poor, etc" tropes. I'm all for making this country equitable and I've put my time in to try to make it so. Any ideas as to how to start? Invade Westchester County or Beverly Hills? Go after Whitey? Confiscate Goldman Sachs? Or should we just focus on being rude and obnoxious to one another instead?
I like the Stars & Stripes when it's used as a flag. When it's used as a bludgeon (metaphorically or literally), not so much.
All of you US citizens are descendants of immigrants. Why is the heritage of citizen A superior to that of citizen B?
"I am a citizen of love."
a protest against the formation of a racially-based political bloc within the United States that promotes fealty to ethnic (latino) or extranational (Mexican) identity prior to US national loyalty.
Bigot and hypocrite. Oktoberfest is all the evidence needed.
A single national language is extremely important for those who are oppressed to access opportunities in the real world.
Bigot and moron not to know there are numerous examples of nations that use multiple languages, and even entire swaths of this very country that do it. Go to Pico Blvd in LA, down behind 20th Century Fox studios, and explain those Hebrew/Yiddish signs, otherwise. Or how about Chinatown in any large city.
The celebration of Cinco de Mayo in many communities is not the equivalent of St Patrick's Day.
Wow--there's really someone in America who has never met a Mexican-American! How else to explain the presumption of knowing what every Mexican-American thinks or cares about or what motivates him?
Hell, if you think Cinco de Mayo is bad, you must freak out entirely that South Texas, starting in San Antonio and going all the way to Brownsville, has just as big a party for Diez y Seis de Septiembre every year. That really is the Mexican equivalent of 4th of July, when Mexico won its independence from Spain, sort of like how America won its from the British.
Of course, if it weren't for Diez y Seis, the Texan landgrabbers would have had to fight Spain, not just Mexico, to become independent. Might not have worked out so well, when there weren't any sizable population centers comparable to Mexico City in Texas.
Isn't it the case that in a free society no-one has the right not to be offended? Doesn't that give these twits the right to wear an American flag on whatever day they like?
Or were they carrying molotov cocktails, or something that the school should be trying to stop?
"You're assholes" is not "You overstepped your legal bounds".
deriamis @ 263
Well. I certainly can't comment on whether each individual immigrant is trying hard enough (for a given value of "hard enough") to learn English really quickly and very well, and I would tend to mildly disapprove (note: not question the legal right, but personally and mildly disapprove) of people who honestly, truly, don't ever bother (although even then it lasts about a generation because their kids are usually bilingual. Same thing happened to many of our ancestors), but I CAN say that "several years" is a pretty short time for such high expectations as being "conversational." I teach English as a foreign language for a living and I can tell you that going from zero to conversational can take a heck of a lot longer than "several [3?] years," particularly when other concerns like "working" and "eating" and "paying for my kid's medical needs" are taking precedence, and leaving little time or money for a decent language course. Not to mention the different levels of aptitude for language and different rates at which people learn even if they have excellent (expensive) private teachers and the luxury of an unchallenging lifestyle which enables them to study and practice as much as possible. So sure, if you know for a fact that a specific person has been in the US for 10 years, with no pressing, distracting responsibilities and the time, money and resources to engage in extensive language learning, a definite aptitude for learning in general and languages in particular, the sort of personality that enables him/her to take risks and make mistakes (a big help in language learning), a good ear and talent for mimicry (for pronunciation), and lacking only in the desire to learn, feel free to judge THAT person for not learning the language well enough.
I admire ya, PZ, but I think your white liberal guilt is biasing you just a bit. I certainly agree with you on a couple things. First, we should be instilling healthy skepticism and willingness to question authority in our kids. That's not what this was, obviously. Second, wearing American flags just screams pretentious asshole, especially if they were doing it to make some kinda bizarre racial/political statement. It's a completely retarded, totally fucking lame cry for help/attention grab. It's also not a big deal. If the Mexican kids want to celebrate whatever it is that makes their culture so awesome, then so should the white boys. Apparently it's not our impeccable fashion sense...
Seriously though, I'm gonna have to side with George Carlin on this one. I remember in one of his acts he talked about how ridiculous he found the idea of racial, ethnic or ancestral pride. I'd add religious pride to that list too. You can't take credit for where you were born, who raised you or how you were raised. Pride is much better reserved for something you actually accomplished. I'd say that fairly applies to both the racist white boys wearing their silly flags, and to the Mexican-Americans, Irish-Americans, and whoever else who want to celebrate their cultural holidays (mainly by getting inebriated, of course). If I was a Mexican (or an Irishman or an Italian living a hundred years ago) I'd be much more proud of the fact that I made it out of my shithole country and was doing the best I could to make a better life for myself in the U.S., despite the protests of the "real Americans."
Oh and Miguel Rodriguez, are you serious? You know that your name's Miguel Rodriguez and you just kicked a bunch of white kids out of school for being patriotic, right? Seriously, how tone deaf can you be? Fox News already has a chopper hovering over your house. They're sending your coordinates to their roving band of teabagging rednecks right now. I'd suggest changing your name to Mike (we can never have enough Mikes) and making a run for Canada. They're coming. I mean, they'll have to finish telling us about how Obama is really a Muslim and he's taking away all they're freedoms. But seriously, after that, they're headed your way. Well, maybe the teabaggers will stop and remind us how the gays are ruining marriage for everyone. But for real, hit the road. I mean, they're gonna finish screaming really soon about how the President doesn't have a birth certificate and we're headed for a one-world government. Really soon.
"What are residents of the U.S.A?"
US Citizens. Not criticizing, mind you, since I like everyone else lazily use "American," but people from Chile and shit do have a point.
#290
I don't entirely disagree with you about arbitrary distinctions of nationality, etc, as silly things to be "proud" of, as they're things we had no control over and no part in bringing about. However, if we rephrase that a little bit and call it "valuing the cultural history of one's family/country/whatever" it changes little/not at all in real essence and sounds a lot less like claiming personal credit for something one was born into. And it's a perfectly valid thing to value (provided it is not to the extent of the exclusion of otherness).
Add to that the fact that it's understandable to feel the need to express pride (or The Recognition of the Value of One's Heritage) in being part of a group that has historically been made to feel inferior and worthy of shame.
On the subject of of learning a language...
I would like to learn a 2nd language. I can't. I just don't have a facility for it.
If the Christian Taliban manages to take over the US, and I, as a disabled person with a life already in shambles, decide to flee to a welcoming France rather than stay and fight - am I an asshole if I don't manage to learn more than a few words of French?
There are LOTS of things I don't know how to do and can't learn how to do. How many of those make me an asshole?
I really dislike these "they won't learn the language" arguments.
The pattern of language acquisition has always been the same - a generation comes over, many of them learn English, some don't. The mother language is spoken at home in either case.
The children grow up bilingual.
The grandchildren mostly only speak English.
Rinse and repeat.
At the beginning of the last century every major American city had multiple non-English daily newspapers. My hometown of Buffalo had German, Yiddish, Polish, Italian and other papers.
A century on, long after the wave of Polish immigration, there's STILL a Polish weekly, at least one, in Buffalo. I'm sure Chicago has more.
There are still plenty of homes in Buffalo where Babcia speaks Polish, where Yia Yia speaks Greek.
There is still the Polish Union of America, where incidentally my father is on the Board of Directors (interestingly the only non-Pole and non-Catholic, atheist in fact, ever to be so.)
Damned DPs just refuse to assimilate.
@la tricoteuse #289:
Your idea of what the word "conversational" means and mine are a bit different. I'm just talking about the basic level of English that allows you to work and live in a foreign country, not the level that allows you to have a detailed conversation with another person who speaks none of your language at all. That definitely can be taught in just a few years, and in fact it would be expected of someone just by the mere fact of being immersed in a language for that long. Hell, I would almost expect them to learn some of it before they get here if the circumstances were different, just like I would of anyone else preparing to visit a foreign country - but then they have somewhat "different circumstances" from most visitors to a foreign country.
Seriously, a good portion of the larger churches here in Texas have free language courses that a lot just don't attend for some reason. It's not so much the fact that they don't know the language, but that they also don't avail themselves of the resources within their reach. I understand the need to work to live, but I would expect that making one's life easier would also be a short-term goal.
Yup. And I don't mean to take away from what they feel, since I certainly am not capable of feeling it in my position. I'm not angry about it in the way I once was before I grew a cortex, either. I'm just curious about the people who don't even seem to try; it's me being concerned about their well-being and their treatment while they are here. Unlike most of my fellow Texans, I have no problem paying for the healthcare and general well-being of an illegal immigrant, but it sure would be nice if they put themselves on the path of naturalization at some point so they can share the tax responsibilities with me in the future. Learning English is a requirement of that, you know.
If you have the capability of learning one language, you have the capability of learning a second - especially French, as it is the foreign language most like English. Yes, I am sure I don't know you at all, but even the mentally handicapped have been known to learn second languages. It's not mental capacity that is the problem, it's immersion. Some people have real difficulty with language courses because they aren't immersive enough, and I would suspect this is the problem for you. Still, my point was about people not even trying to help themselves, not about having difficulty with a new language.
No, and I wouldn't say you were. The French might, though. To me, you're just making life more difficult for yourself having to constantly have someone either translate for you or to have to struggle to read signs and public documents. It has nothing to do with whether you are an asshole.
The principal should have embraced the same tactic that America uses toward the idiocy of teabaggers: make no attempt to interfere with their right to display their stupidity...
And mock them without mercy.
First, I think everybody except the school district behaved badly here. The tea baggers and right-wing radio worst of all for picking up the wrong battle. (edit: And by the way it turns out nobody was supposed to be wearing any flag shit at all. "American, Mexican or Estonian" according to that reporter.) If it was my kid and he showed up at breakfast wearing a flag shirt on May 5, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. If, however, I found out he planned to hang out with 4 of his friends dressed the same way, I'd tell him to change his shirt and check his bookbag on the way out the door as well.
However, as a lifetime resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, this is actually local news for me. Reading the comments above, I had to laugh out loud at this rending of souls over these poor downtrodden little Mexicans in freaking Morgan freaking Hill. You see Morgan Hill is a bedroom community for those who work in Silicon Valley and can afford to sacrifice a few miles commute for living amongst a bit more greenery. Sandwiched between one of the largest state parks, two of the largest county parks, and three golf/country clubs, Morgan Hill has a median household income of just shy of $100k, median family income is just short of $110K. If you want your kid to go to Live Oak HS, your mortgage banker won't quite have to write a check with two commas, but he will if you want your kid to be able to walk to school. Set aside about $2.5 million for that. You see it's surrounded by one of those country clubs and vineyards. This is a dispute between spoiled rich white punks and spoiled rich slightly-more-melanistic "victims-for-a-day".
There's something else going on amongst the kids because in the wider community, Cinco de Mayo is like St. Patrick's Day. Substitute mexican for irish in the old standby "everybody's irish for a day" and that's what it's like if you go by the park for a picnic or out to a bar. Supermarkets have specials on theme-specific items. Just like you'd expect when most Bay Area communities are anywhere from 25%-55% "hispanic or latino of any race" even in the gentrified areas.(Morgan Hill 28.5%; next door in San Martin, 40%; Gilroy, 54% and $70k mean household) Hell, Redwood City, one of the most expensive places to live in the Bay Area has more residents that hail from one small town outside Morelia, Michoacán than currently live in that small town in Michoacán. You'd be hard-pressed to get more than a mile from a mexicatessen here. And nobody will look at you strangely when you shop there, whatever your ancestry. Supermarkets stock up on masa near Christmas and stock Tamarindo year-round right next to Sprite. Mexican-American culture is part of everybody's Bay Area culture. You could exchange all of that for Asian(Japanese/Chinese/Hmong/Vietnamese/Indian/Pakistani) in many places too. Cupertino, for example is 45% asian(65% in the schools).
Oh yeah, and one of the Morgan Hill 5, Dominic Maciel? He's half hispanic himself. I don't know what's going on there.
Just wanted to say that the post by GeorgeFromNY-comment #86-was bang-on perfect.
I logged in & was ready to at least attempt to post something that endorsed the boys while at the same time not coming off as a bigot (I'm not), however, after reading George's comment...well, you said it better than I ever could've, George.
Absolutely spot-on, my friend.
Thanks for shining the light of sanity & common sense on this misguided, over-the-top PC silliness.
Anyone should be allowed to wear whatever they want, but I'm saddened by this battle of T-shirts.
It represents the sort of simple-minded tribalism one sees in Ireland, where great significance is attached to the colors orange and green. It's divisive and silly, and can lead to violence.
If I was a Mexican (or an Irishman or an Italian living a hundred years ago) I'd be much more proud of the fact that I made it out of my shithole country - yahoomess
I suggest you go to Mexico, and inform everyone you meet that it's a "shithole country". Let us know how it works out for you.
Except this is a school not a march on town hall.
deriamis @ 294-
How silly of you to assume what I might have meant by "conversational." It's not far off from that "basic" level of English you're talking about, which is actually not so basic, incidentally. Working and living in a foreign country, operating completely in a foreign language, requires a much higher level of language than you seem to be aware. Have you tried it yourself? Do you have any idea how hard it is to understand native speakers as a non-native speaker, even if your ability to produce the language is reasonably high due to considerable study? Understanding is half the picture, after all. Throw in a variety of accents and you're fucked. Even my mother, who lived in the US for 25 years, and speaks fluent English has trouble understanding British people, for example. Hell, people from West Virginia don't understand people from Massachusetts half the time, and vice versa. Have you even put any thought into this at all?
As for this:
Well...putting aside the experiences of many of my students who studied English for years before visiting or moving to an English-speaking country, I'll use one of my own: I studied French (which is really similar to ITALIAN, which helped me a lot, but where the hell do you get the idea that it's "the most similar language to English"? Have you heard of Dutch? or German?) for four years, and in the classroom I was fucking fantastic and the envy of all my classmates, etc, thanks to my Italian background, but I was at a complete loss to understand what the hell anyone was saying at any given moment when I actually went to Paris. Had I remained there to live for a few years, I'd have improved, sure. Eventually. But even with that four-year base (MORE than enough for anyone to be at a conversational level, according to you) I couldn't even have ordered a sandwich in a shop without difficulty and embarrassment. It just isn't that goddamn simple.
Not to mention that moving to or visiting another country as a relatively prosperous person from a privileged society with the leisure to study the language before going is very very different from emigrating from a very poor country to improve the quality of life for you and/or your children.
Can it? DEFINITELY? Language by osmosis? Really?
What RBDC said: The principal had a golden opportunity to educate, and failed.
Now, I always wear orange and drink black-and-tans on St. Patrick's Day just to show my loyalty to the Crown, but...
...how can anyone object to Cinco de Mayo? It's a holiday dedicated to mid-morning margaritas and tequila shots! If there's anything we need more of, it's drinking holidays! Somebody get these kids a few Coronas and explain this to them!
Even my mother, who lived in the US for 25 years, and speaks fluent English has trouble understanding British people, for example.
It says nothing bad about your mother's English that she can't understand British people if she's used to American English. I'm a native speaker of American English and have trouble understanding British people.
And Australians. I once travelled to Australia. Got off plane. Gave passport to passport control. The customs officer said something. I didn't understand a word of it. My first panicked thought was, "Crap! I thought they spoke English here." My second was, "Wait...maybe what I speak isn't really English. What kind of enormous conspiracy can have made that possible?" I hadn't slept on the plane. It got easier from there. But the accents never did get easy.
I suppose that means that by the "conversational" definition I'm not really conversational in English. Or at least not British. Maybe I'll go with the German definition and claim I speak American.
Actually that's not what I meant exactly.
A teaching moment yes, but the principal has an obligation to keep student's behavior from significantly disrupting the rest of the school. Use it as a teaching moment but also remove the disruption if it is determined to be sufficient enough to disrupt the primary obligation of the school, which is to teach the curriculum.
And I'm not claiming that the Mexican-American students would be the problem reacting. You and I and everyone knows how high-school kids can and do act. Group think and mob mentality are rampant in high school and it could very easily be the "white" kids jumping on the taunting bandwagon.
Again, IANAL by any stretch but I defer to my admittedly limited understanding of the courts on this. It depends if the disturbance is deemed significant enough to pass the Tinker Test.
If it does not, the the principal was wrong.
And frankly after re-reading a few articles (and not just on fox, trust me) on the incident it does not appear like the students were doing anything more than wearing the shirts. Their intentions might suck, but baring any new information I don't see that they were posing a significant disturbance or actively provoking anyone out side of just wearing a shirt.
Of course I could be completely off base on this.
"Still, my point was about people not even trying to help themselves, not about having difficulty with a new language.
Could it be that rather than being "unwilling to help themselves" they just happen to have different ideas about how they'd like to live their lives, different priorities and ideas of what's best for them, and a different view how they'd like to express themselves verbally (and otherwise) than what you personally would like to deem desirable (if not outright demand) of them?
Hell, I'm from Charleston and I can barely understand some people from just next door.
That should be Charleston SC and not WV of course.
Diane @ #304
No, I know. Her English is fantastic, and I usually use her as a positive example for my students that it's difficult, but not by any means impossible, to reach a good level of English as an adult learner. It was more meant to illustrate that language learning is complicated and dependent upon a number of different areas and factors, and that it's not as easy as just studying for a few years, zipping into x country, and fitting comfortably into native life, and that being accustomed to one type of speaker does not mean you'll be able to understand another one just as well (which is why no matter how many years you might study and speak with other non-native speakers before visiting or moving to x country, you'll still have lots of difficulty with comprehension).
Sometimes I don't understand Geordies. :D
In my birth country in Primary and Secondary school (equivalent to everything through high school here) we were all one classroom with the same people throughout the 11-12 years. The whole class was divided in 3 sections, "A", "B" and "C". Some sections in some classes didn't get along well or at all, so at some point everybody could get randomly swapped into another section the next year so everybody would get to know each other and stop the hate.
I propose everybody swap countries for a while.
you sure you want to do that?
I don't understand fundamentalist Christians at all.
good point
I've already swapped a couple of times and I'm sticking with this one (UK) for awhile. :D I like it.
Also, whoops Rev. I missed your comment from up there somewhere. I know very little about Charleston, SC but I know enough about the WV one to imagine the distinction is very, very important.
I already did :)
Besides the patch^H^H^H^H^Hflag talk I don't either understand the bitching about language.
I'm trilingual (English/French/Spanish) and speak bit of Dutch, Portuguese, German and Italian but, if there's something I regret looking back at my life, it's precisely to have stopped learning more languages when I was younger and thought that dominating 3 of the most used ones was enough. How stupid I was then. Now I'm at it again with Portuguese but I know it's too late to get to really know well all the languages I want and that's what I regret. So listen, young ones, don't miss the train I missed.
As about the discussion about immersion and the "right" way to do it and regional differences, well it depends on the people and your mileage may vary. I came to study in the US Deep South Bible Belt with straight UK English and had to adapt, whether I liked it or not. And when I migrated to Spain I just knew 2 words of Spanish, "cerveza" and "papas fritas", the base of the Belgian diet. Despite going to to school for less than one month, in less than sixth months I was speaking Spanish with a strong local accent. On the contrary after 2 years in the US my wife did not spoke a word of English.
More than anything, it's a question of willing...
Well I was just being accurate being that the quote mentioned WV.
@deriamis #294
OT, for sure but my inner pedant must be appeased. I think you must have gotten confused. French isn't even in the same family as English. It's a Romance language along with Portugese, Spanish, Italian and Romanian. English is Germanic in construction with some French borrow words. Frisian is the closest to modern English.
More profitably, I've read that knowing German makes Dutch mostly intelligible to an English speaker. Or go with a Nordic language like Swedish and roll up 3 1/2 countries since all but Icelandic and Faroese are fairly mutually intelligible. Or so says my Swedish friend. Icelandic is like Middle or Old English to Swedes.
barfy: A single national language is extremely important for those who are oppressed to access opportunities in the real world.
Why?
Being bilingual isn't really that hard. In fact, being polylingual is the default, natural state of human beings -- unilingualism is an artifact of strong nationalism. You only have to grow up around folks speaking multiple languages to be polyvalent linguistically.
Why do nationalists always make themselves sound so damn stupid, as if they lacked the intellectual capacities of stone-age hunter gatherers?
I guess, asked therefore answered.
@Markle: OT, for sure but my inner pedant must be appeased. I think you must have gotten confused. French isn't even in the same family as English. It's a Romance language along with Portugese, Spanish, Italian and Romanian. English is Germanic in construction with some French borrow words.
Genealogically, true. But actual, current English "construction" is much more dominated by French practice than it's Germanic heritage.
It has almost no declension -- and the survivals are in the same places as in French, for the most part. Conjugations are likewise heavily infiltrated by French forms, using by metaphor the "have" construction for the perfect tenses with a similar usage pattern to French (more so than German). I'd bet that the perfect tenses in most Germanic languages are actually patterned after vulgar Latin and not their genealogical heritage -- someone with a better knowledge of etymology might know.
The vocabulary is heavily, heavily French as well.
English is probably better described as a creole than as a "Germanic" language -- but then, most languages developed as creoles to some extent or other. Even vulgar Latin looks to me like a creole of Classical Latin with Greek and other Mediterranean languages.
TimKO: But why insist that the American flag automatically carries negative connotations? If I wear blue on St Patricks day, what do I MEAN by it? It's all up to the perceiver : the message is blatant if you hold intricate preconceptions
Sorry, that's dumb. Communication is a two way street -- we exist within a tradition of communication, so we can KNOW what other people "mean". It doesn't take mind-reading -- words have meanings in context. It's all "fucking symbols" anyhow -- if you say "fuck symbolism", you're saying "fuck language".
Well, I'm communicating here with symbols with you. You know what I'm saying. You don't have to even think twice about it, even though it's just a sequence of numbers between 32 and 65 (mostly).
Just symbols -- yet somehow, magically, you can correctly interpret it. Be a little more sophisticated, instead of hiding behind "the private mind of others". Minds aren't private.
And if my ancestors had just gone ahead and closed the border after they immigrated, we wouldn't have this problem. :-p
I can think of 'Americano', 'Yanqui' and 'Gringo' off the top of my head.
I can personally vouch for the fact that if you arrive in Mexico on Independence day, and Mexicans think that you are American, you get a friendly welcome. I can also vouch that when they discover that you aren't a yanqui, that you may end up on someone's doorstep at 2am, drinking tequila and getting free Spanish lessons.
It is my impression that all immigrants from 1620 onwards are 'illegals', since they had no permission to stay from the previous inhabitants of the land.
Then a Long Island Iced Tea must be really confusing to you. It's one part vodka, one part gin, one part tequila, one part rum and one part triple sec with 1 1/2 parts sour mix. But which part is the rum? The bottom, the left, the right? If I ask for the tequila part to be left out, will my drink have a hole in the middle?
Damn it. That made me thirsty.
I left the :-) off of #324. It was obviously meant to be all in fun.
@KOPD
You also left off the splash of Cola for color and just a touch of sweet.
Ice Tea Heretic!
The flag is not offensive, moron. It's what you do with it. For example, if I shoved it up your ass, which you just may deserve, you'd be offended.
If I displayed it covered with feces, it just might be offensive. If I displayed as part of a "WHITE POWER" rally against some, oh, native Americans and told them to "get out of my country," it just might be offensive...
I could go on. But I generally find that people who live in absolute-land NEVER, EVER GET IT.
When I was young they said that about Catholics and their "loyalty to the Pope." Which is why those bigots were so adamant that there would "never have a Catholic President.
Then came JFK.
But, beyond that, your reasoning is the EXACT reasoning used by bigots and racists for over two hundred years of American history... Congrats. You've just shown us you knickers.
English is probably better described as a creole than as a "Germanic" language
Nonsense. English never underwent the process of creole formation, which occurs when a generation of children is brought up in a linguistic environment dominated by a pidgin language. Pidgins are rough and ready communication systems that arise in situations of linguistic diversity. They have no grammar, essentially. When the first-language acquisition equipment of children raised in such an environment "comes online," it actually imposes a grammar on the vocabulary of the pidgin, and a creole is born.
English has had a checkered past and, as you note correctly, it took on a lot of French vocabulary as a result of the Norman conquest. But there, you didn't have creole formation because the vast majority of Anglo-English natives never spoke French as their primary language; it was the language of the court and the upper class. And the grammatical features you note, lack of declension and such, had already taken hold in English by the time of the Norman conquest (Anglo-Saxon speakers originally took over a Celtic-speaking environment and subsequently Viking invaders imposed Old Norse on substantial segments of the Northeastern population as well). Despite being so case-poor and generally lacking in inflection, the grammar is still correctly identified as Germanic, and, of course, so is all the most "basic" vocabulary: all the words for things of or relating to the body and the "hearth and home" are pure Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse.
Semi-hot off the presses.
From our fellow Amerikans in Arizona... You must admit these guys and gals are pretty clever: If we don't let the Mexican-Americans study about being oppressed by white Americans, how will they ever know they are?
It takes time. You change a law today, it takes years to move the plants, destabilize other economies, bust unions, etc.
Or British citizens too! At least in my case (that's what my Green card alludes to anyway, although admittedly it doesn't give citizenry)- I'm sure residents of the USA fall under pretty much every nationality.... citizens of the USA however... yeah, they'd be US citizens.
Racism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, xenophobia, religion --all have served to divide the human family from time immemorial. Such regrettable all-too-human tendencies run like a leitmotif throughout the history of our species. Every war that’s ever been waged, every horrific act of genocidal madness, every bigoted and intolerant word that’s ever been uttered, every instance of “man’s inhumanity to man” originates in those aforementioned tendencies. The real challenge is to rise above such pettiness and seek to exemplify in our daily lives what Lincoln poetically referred to as the better angels of our nature.
PZ:
Sigh. A nicely measured and soberly-reasoned start.
In an attempt to make a nice start of my own, I'll point out that I'd be much more willing to forgive the vehemence of your blogpost if it'd been aimed at adults rather than at children.
That same sentence without the loaded terms:
Hm - urge to kill... fading....
Sentence again, de-loadedterm-ised:
As an aside, I'm intrigued that you chose to directly contrast Ebert's words with those vicious and cruel enough to attack him based on his illness. It's like you're trying to lend his words extra credibility rather than letting them stand on their own merits.
Just because a person is being attacked by vicious imbeciles doesn't mean that person's argument must be correct.
And as a certifiable expert in doing things that other people decide they want to find offensive, I'd think you would be more willing to consider the possibility that your own reaction to this incident may be less than entirely evidence-based.
Glad to hear it.
Who's this "we"? Are you chastising them for the wrong thing (even though you apparently know it's the wrong thing)? If you're not, then there is no "we". There's just you and a whole bunch of other people.
Some of whom don't share your opinions, at least in this specific case. Hint hint.
See, this is another example of loaded phrasing, and I'd think you would know better than to abuse this sort of thing. Consider "They were offensive, all right" versus "People were offended, all right".
The second phrase is much more neutral - it emphasises the action of the people taking offense, which in this case is not under any dispute. And taking offense is not by default considered blameworthy.
The first phrase, however, directly implies the blame lies with those who "were offensive", as they are suggested to have actively initiated the action leading to offense.
Oh for the sake of fuck. "Craven little cowards"? Seriously?
Now you're just throwing genuinely baseless insults. And not to spoil the surprise for anyone, but you don't offer anything to support this fling-all-the-shit-you-can-and-see-what-sticks attempt below, either.
You might feel like you'd be acting like a jerk, but even if that were true I'd still consider it both a perfectly legitimate protest and the exact opposite of "craven cowardice".
There's one gigantic difference in this case, though - you are not being compelled to attend church. These children are being compelled to attend school.
If you were being compelled to attend Sunday Mass every week, I suspect you might find it a little easier to get over your reluctance re: supposed jerkishness.
I agree with you here. You're right, it doesn't mean you should hammer every Catholic with that message all the time. It'd be incredibly tiring, for one thing, and (more seriously) it'd be a gross intrusion on their private lives.
If by "simply random" you meant that the message would be lost in the blur of irritation caused by excessive message-spamming, I agree.
I disagree about the "sole intent" thing, though.
...Seriously? You really think wearing a shirt with "ARREST THE POPE" on it, in a public space, is rude?
Ye chocolate-egg-merchants. Look, I know you're really pushing it here in an (increasingly weird) attempt to make it seem like these schoolkids actually did something wrong (let alone wrong enough to deserve the punishment of a Pharyngula public lashing), but just look at what you're writing!
I suspect a shirt with, say, "FUCK THE MOTHERFUCKING POPE" on it would be considered rude by most standards, but a shirt with "ARREST THE POPE" on it is utterly innocuous by comparison. It's just surreal to consider that rude.
So now we get to it. You think "rudeness" (even if it's rudeness as judged by the pearl-clutching crowd(?)) is wrong - unless it's rudeness with a Higher Purpose(tm).
(Yes, I'm mocking you. You, unlike these kids, are a big boy. I think you can take it.)
If you seriously think that's the only plausible explanation, you should also seriously consider the possibility that you're just not thinking hard enough. Or perhaps that it's just an explanation that is outside of your experience of plausible explanations.
One that seems extremely plausible (at least to me) is that they did it for a bet. Or as a weird joke. Or just for the lulz. Or an uneven combination of all of the above, along with a dose of peer group pressure.
(Hey, you didn't say they had to be good, sensible, logical explanations. Just plausible.)
Hooray! PZ's talking sense again! Break out the US-flag-pattern Eucharist crackers!
Sigh. Look, you're doing a classic Homer here - pull an inherently ludicruous straw-man out of your arse one sentence, then treat it as established fact the next.
And in this case you're making a conclusion about cowardice that doesn't follow from the straw-man, even if that straw-man did have some basis in reality. Ridiculous and petty doesn't mean cowardly - it just means ridiculous and petty.
Horrifyingly enough, this is now starting to stink of fatwa-envy bullshit.
Ebert did the same thing with his "four easy thought experiments". Part four is particularly distasteful - where he casually mentions "after three hospitalizations", as though violent assault is a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and socially acceptable response to, say, someone wearing a shirt with a photograph of Stalin. Fuck that.
You and Ebert should be ashamed of yourselves. This kind of behaviour is beneath you.
Oh hooray! Now we get to play the "Let's Make The Most Twisted Possible Misinterpretation Of An Essentially Innocuous Quote" game! Yay, I love this one.
The woman you quote there is not saying it was an entirely unintentional faux pas. Why would you feel the need to characterise her as saying that?
The obvious, straightforward and entirely logical interpretation is that she's explaining her son has four such shirts and therefore has worn such shirts to school frequently - with the implication that he was not punished on any other day he wore one of those shirts, just this day.
Is it still a lie if the accused "liar" didn't actually, um, say it?
Good for them. Better to assert indignation at an injustice rather than cower and hide it, wouldn't you say?
...
I'm really puzzled as to what you seem to think she's actually saying. It seems clear to me that she's using the "American kids" line because those kids are being punished specifically for wearing an American-flag shirt (the implication being that it should be completely normal and acceptable, perhaps even praiseworthy, for an American kid to wear such a shirt to school).
The Mexican-American students (as well as presumbly most other kids at the school) are also American kids, of course, but they're also not the kids who were sent home from school as punishment for wearing a symbol of their country on their shirt.
I must admit I would've preferred it if they'd just told the principal "Fuck you, no, we're not playing along with your overreaching bullshit" and refused on those grounds. But I don't really care what reason they gave.
The only thing that matters is that the principal's reason for punishing them was utterly invalid and unfair.
Good. Despite the sarcasm.
I suspect the last six words there is the key part. A lot of things can look like racism if there's a sufficiently determined number of media outlets and/or bloggers enthusiastic to paint it that way.
You know the sort of media I mean? The kind that take a story, reinterpret it through the window of their own prejudices, do no research (too much like work), and don't bother checking their work for unsupportable suppositions/insinuations?
...Yeah, the kind that write stuff like that.
And the kind that write stuff like this:
In my country (you visited it recently) we have a chap by the name of Stephen Conroy. He's the government's salesdrone for the wondrous internet filter, which will protect us from all the badness on the intarwebs, praise Jeebers.
Much like you, he doesn't react well to being told he's wrong (and for him it's actually true far more often than not). He's twice now, on the record, suggested that he considers those opposing his filter scheme to be in favour of child porn.
I just thought I'd remind you of the kind of pool you're swimming in with comments like the above.
It would be nice if you could admit people can disagree with you without them necessarily being racist bigots.
In conclusion, sigh. I really wanted to get some sleep tonight. Damn you XKCD.
Bix12 @ #297
Yes, you are.
Robert H @ #330:
Do you have an idea how stupid you sound?
CJO: Nonsense. English never underwent the process of creole formation, which occurs when a generation of children is brought up in a linguistic environment dominated by a pidgin language. Pidgins are rough and ready communication systems that arise in situations of linguistic diversity. They have no grammar, essentially. When the first-language acquisition equipment of children raised in such an environment "comes online," it actually imposes a grammar on the vocabulary of the pidgin, and a creole is born.
Then almost no "creoles" are actually creoles. Most cases of "creoles" aren't in pidgin-dominated environments, but in highly multilingual environments -- which is quite different.
Sure, there are cases like in Niugini at work camps where pidgin->creole happens since almost every last person speaks a different language.
But that's not the case in say Haiti, where children were brought up among a handful of fully developed languages. Pidgins happen in commercial environments where community membership is temporary -- most people have no problem picking up another language if there are a number of speakers with which they will spend a lifetime, like in slavery situations or invasions.
Folks like to make this sharp distinction between "creoles" and other languages. I call bullshit. It's a historical artifact of colonialism in linguistic -- between the high and might languages of the nations, and the "creoles" of the subjects.
After the Norman conquest, "English" speakers were brought up (at least the upper classes) in a bilingual environment and they creolized the languages, just as the folks in the Roman Empire creolized their languages with Latin to produce vulgar Latin.
Some of the substrate sticks of course differentially. But people are always creolizing. The very idea of language "genealogy" is essentially bullshit -- it describes the nature of substrate/superstrate distinctions, but languages are naturally polyparental.
It's the other way around -- the minimally creolized are a few indigenous languages of people who have intentionally isolated themselves. That becomes fewer and fewer with every passing century.
@frog, Inc.
I get what you're saying, but it is still the case that "creole" is a technical term with a narrow definition in linguistics (though it's been 20 years since my undergrad linguistics courses, so maybe I'm out of date).
If this were true, then how could the entire field of Historical Linguistics operate? Again, I get what you're saying, and it is perhaps underappreciated how fundamental and ordinary loan words are to the development of a language, but I hesitate at "polyparental." The importation of French courtly vocabulary into a predoninantly Anglo-Saxon/Old Norse Germanic matrix where less than 5% of the population ever spoke fluent French hardly makes English a Germanic/Romance hybrid.
As for the Hatian creole, it was my understanding that a pidgin was formed, using French vocabulary with a "common-denominator" highly simplified West African grammar. Anyway, makeshift systems of verbal communication form in "highly multilingual environments," and they are functionally pidgins, whether or not anyone calls them by that name, which children who are raised around spontaneously make into grammatical languages, called creoles specifically because of these features of the language's origin. I also dispute that there is any really sharp distinction, and my motivation is not to denigrate creole languages, just to dispute that English is one as that term is used by linguists.
Your last paragraph I completely agree with, and suggest that the adjective "creolized" suits your premise better than the noun, and we can agree that there is a continuum of more and less creolized languages with English certainly falling on that spectrum.
What if you wore your "Arrest the Pope" T-shirt across the street from a Roman Catholic church so that people could see you when they came out? I think that would be acceptable.
Actually, it is in the same family, in the sense that English is descended from a pidgin of Norman French and Anglo Saxon languages. That's why a lot of French looks like English in the "wrong" order. And French is a Romance language only in the sense that the Romans conquered the Gauls and forced them to speak Latin, thereby making another pidgin.
But you're right - Frisian is much closer. But Frisian also is not a very popular language right now, so I make loose comparisons where appropriate.
@la tricoteuse: I wasn't expressing what you meant so much as the difference between your expressed meaning and my own experience. I didn't say learning English was easy. It's just not impossible.
And before you lump me in the "those brown jerks should learn the language of the land!" people, you really should check what I have already said here. I expressed the opposite sentiment already. It's just a fact that the easiest way to show respect for the culture of the country you visit is to learn the language. It makes people feel good when you at least attempt the language. For instance, the French show their approval by correcting your grammar, but they still smile when they do it because you're at least trying. What they don't like is a tourist who's just there for what they can get out of it.
When I say I expect someone to learn the language when they come here, I mean that I would like them to at least attempt it. If they have plans to take advantage of the benefits we provide citizens, I would like them to make moves towards becoming naturalized - which currently includes learning English. If they never even try to learn the language, they aren't trying to go through the process.
deriamis - sooo...you were erecting a nice, fluffy strawman to argue against, is what you're saying? Because no one said it was impossible, or that people shouldn't try. :) But you're arguing as though you know with some level of certainty that a large portion of the immigrant population is definitely not trying "hard enough" (whatever that means). As if there's a way to measure by casual observation which immigrants have definitely been in their new country "long enough" (whatever that means) to have achieved your vaguely defined minimum level of acceptable conversational English.
Incidentally, why should people from Paris (or Rome or *insert popular European tourist destination here*) have problems with "a tourist who's just there for what they can get out of it"? It's a city that makes a crapload of money from, um, tourism. Holding one hand open to accept that money (at specially inflated prices for the stupid gullible foreigners) while using the other hand to flip off the people handing it to you is pretty ungracious. (It should be noted that I absolutely don't disagree with you that it's NICE to learn some of a language before you visit a country. However, this is completely different argument from the issue of immigration, and the people going to Paris on holiday are a world away from the people emigrating from poor countries out of necessity. And it's worth noting that a lot of people form their opinions of someone's mastery of ONE language based on hearing him/her speaking ANOTHER language. That is to say, immigrants speaking Spanish to each other are not necessarily incapable of speaking English to you.)
So, PZ's saying it's racist to wear the flag on a day brown people celebrate the time they beat up some white guys.
Uh-huh, I think I get it..
I don't know how many of you that comment on this blog self-identify as Mexican-Americans or participate in Mexican-American culture or speak Spanish. But from your comments it sounds like many of you don't identify as Mexican-Americans.
Well I'm a Mexican-American living in New Mexico. I read, write and speak Spanish fluently and I've lived in Mexico too where I used to teach English as a foreign language. I've also taught English as a Second Language on the US/Mexican border in Arizona and New Mexico. Presently, I teach Spanish Language Arts to Mexican immigrant students. I also used to own and run a money-transfer and check cashing business where about 99% of my clientele were Mexican immigrants. My business also included translation and interpretation of documents from Spanish to English and vice versa. My second husband was from Mexico. He was a Fulbright scholar in applied mathematics and was working on a Ph.D. here in the US. He chose to overstay his visa and become an illegal immigrant.
All of my life has been spent in the Mexican-American community in one form or another. For the last 23 years I have been actively involved with Mexican immigrants in different capacities.
So forgive me if I contradict some of what you are saying here.
First of all, Cinco de Mayo here in the US is all about cultural domination and it always has been. It is all about the primacy of Mexican culture and of the Spanish language. The National Council of La Raza might deny it. The Hispanic politicians who are always claiming they represent us might deny it, but most Mexican-American know that is what it is about. But they'll never say it openly. Rarely will they do that. And they most certainly won't say it in front of "gringos", i.e. white people. At least every where I've ever been in Mexican and Mexican-American communities everyone is always proud that Spanish is becoming more and more dominant in the US.
Here's another thing you might not realize. Many of those Mexican-American students at the Cinco de Mayo celebration at the high school in California probably aren't even American citizens or legal residents. I can't know for sure but based on my past experience of teaching in Mexican-American communities easily 1/4 to 1/2 of the student population at that high school is probably comprised of Mexican nationals living in the US in violation of US immigration laws. Easily. So for them, Cinco de Mayo really is about expressing pride in their home country and it really is about Mexican culture dominating US culture.
PZ expressed concern about Mexican-American students being unable to express their culture. Sorry I had to laugh there. Here in NM and most parts of the SW, Mexican-American and Mexican culture is THE de facto culture to which everybody else learns to adapt in some form or another. If you want to get along here you learn Spanish and you learn the basics of Mexican and MExican-American culture. Nobody around here is "oppressed" because they can't participate in Mexican and MExican-American culture. Well, that's not exactly true. In fact, lots of Mexican-Americans are oppressed for not participating in Mexican culture--not from "white people" but rather from wealthy and upper middle-class "Hispanics" who never cease to remind poor people born with Hispanic surnames to "never forget their culture" and who constantly remind them they must "never forget Spanish". You see, these "Hispanics" who are very assimilated to US white people culture need to make sure they keep the peons in place on the lower echelons of society so they can then claim to be their leaders. Yeah, we sure need them.
Many of you write about this situation as it if were very simple. But it's not.
Mexican presidents Zedillo, Fox and Calderon have all made statements directly declaring that wherever there is a MExican, that is MExico. The MExican government through its consulates regularly interferes in the domestic politics of the US.
What PZ and most of you writing on this blog don't realize is that there are Mexican-Americans and Mexicans living here in the US and in MExico that are actively trying to foment ethnic strife in the SW of the US with the intent of separating the SW from the US. I've met many of these people and they are serious. They aren't kidding.
I think before any of you comment on issues regarding illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, and laws regarding illegal immigration you need to spend some time seriously informing yourselves about the reality on the ground and comparing it to what you imagine it to be.
Oh and by the way, so what if those kids wore T-shirts with American flags. Mexican-Americans have no inherent right to be free from feeling offended. And besides, why should Mexican-Americans feel offended by the US flag. They are after all Americans, aren't they? Or maybe they aren't. In imaginary worlds, what language people speak and what culture they participate in make no difference. But in the real world a person's loyalty to a particular culture, language or nation-state do have real world consequences. And that, is the real problem with the Cinco de Mayo celebrations.
Thanx 4 that, Mex-Am Observer.
What PZ also failed to note, was that one of the students who was sent home was of Mexican descent himself, but obviously identified with the USA, unlike the wearers of the foreign flag.
PZ, please check comment 343. I'm guessing Al B. Moron is engaged in the time-honored glibertarian pastime of sockpuppeting. The only doubt emerges because #343 uses some multi-syllabic words that may be beyond the grasp of Al.
...because one must, of course, be one or the other. One must forget Spanish in order to speak English, and any encouragement not to forget one's origins (and even to feel good about them!) is clearly an attempt to create a New Hispanic Order in the good old US of A. It's just so rude of those foreigns not to white-wash their memories and family background to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of their new compatriots.
Also, Mex-Am Observer: It's been said before, but apparently needs to be said again. It's not THE FLAG ITSELF that is offensive, but the INTENT OF THE WEARER. A group of students organizing to wear American flags and bandanas simultaneously on a day set aside for a celebration of Hispanic heritage, in a time when people are all up in arms about immigration? It's pretty hard to argue that there wasn't intent to offend or make some kind of Us vs Them statement. And of course no one has the right not to be offended, but people DO have the right to call people out on their intent to offend. Talking about what jerks those kids are is not equivalent to saying they don't have the right to be jerks. Whether or not they had the right to demonstrate their jerkiness in that way in that context depends on the policies of the school. I can't comment on that because I don't know those policies.
Ugh. Mex-Am Observer, what a pathetically transparent troll. The one thing worth responding to is that bit about these kids being aliens. Notafuckingchance. The rental property in Morgan Hill tends to have "Executive" or "long-term" in the title. There are some small bungalows left over from the days when Morgan Hill was all wineries and garlic fields and 101 was a two-lane highway with stoplights (mid-80s), but that's up North in the other HS's attendance area. You're going to find your illegals in Gilroy or San Benito or Monterey Counties.
@ la tricoteuse #346 If you go up to my long post circa late 290s or so you'll see I have some links that are a bit more local than PZs. Last year there was some trouble between the groups. Because of this, NOBODY was supposed to be wearing flag items of any sort. This may explain some of the defensiveness in that US Flag mom. These 5 were apparently singled out because they were grouped together.(If you read the article, though, you'll read that they were also wearing bandanas which are verbotten 365.25 days a year, so that may actually be the catalyst) There were other kids wearing US Flag shirts as well. Of course there were also about 100 kids wearing Mexican flag items as well, at least according to every article I found. The Freshman girl quoted in just about every article and pictured in the Morgan Hill Times article was wearing a Mexican flag like a shawl. She had it confiscated just before school let out.
This is why I think nobody but the school district got it right. Basically, all of these kids were violating a directive handed down by the district and only these 5 got any sort of discipline. The principal should have hauled them all into the gym and laid down the law. This is a school of 1200. A couple hundred, at most, having their parents called to bring them replacement clothing before 9 or 10 AM and it would have been a non-issue. A lot of pissed-off parents, but most pissed-off at their kids for dragging them out to the school from work.
To Markle: Your best response to what I wrote is to call me a troll? An ad hominem? That's your best response? That's very sad.
To La Tricoteuse: Intent is exactly the point I was trying to make about Cinco de mayo. The reason for celebrating it for many Mexicans in the US and many Mexican-Americans is to make the point that they feel their culture is superior to US culture. Their intent is to make Americans feel bad and less than them. The point is it to create a sense of cultural solidarity amongst themselves and to keep themselves sepearate from other Americans. That's the intent. There is nothing innocuous about Cinco de mayo celebrations and they aren't about "oppressed" people getting a chance to celebrate their heritage. Cinco de mayo celebrations are all about cultural imperialism--except in this case it is Mexican cultural imperialism.
I really expected more intelligent responses from people commenting on a science blog. I guess I was wrong there.
Mex-Am - Except that you're the one making quite a leap from "creating a sense of cultural solidarity amongst themselves" to "keeping themselves separate from other Americans," and "cultural imperialism" (is that what Oktoberfest and St. Patrick's Day are about, too? Or is it only people with white heritage who are allowed to participate in celebrations of same) although, to be honest, if the members of their community with less apparent heritage share your opinion about this, I would hardly blame the Mexican-American kids for wanting to remain separate if that were true (though it still wouldn't be cultural imperialism because you kind of have to have a fucking empire to be imperialist. Hi there). Celebrating your heritage does not necessarily equate to belittling the heritage of others (note: before you co-opt that argument in support of the boys who wore the American flags, please refer to the point about it being an organized celebration of a specific culture, which makes disrupting it with pointed demonstrations of a culture (which, incidentally, has historically done a whole lot of REAL "imperializin'" of its own) which is currently seeking to rid itself of the culture being celebrated on that day a bit of a dick move.
Again, "celebrating one's heritage" is NOT equivalent to cultural imperialism unless you're offended by people being all Mexican at you, and think "some different people being different around me" is equal to the fall of American culture (like the BNP harping on about NO BRITISH PEOPLE LEFT IN BRITAIN OH NOES).
Actually PZ, Cinoc de Mayo is a religiuos Mexican holiday.
By the way, time is not magic. It can't turn Mexico into U.S.A. 'over time'.
:)