Did you see what the elite think of boat rocker Mr. Gravel?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701553_pf.html
--Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren't helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel --
The only debate that is allowed seems to be whether to nuke the 'baddies' on a wednesday or a friday. I wonder given the native and Mexican's murder in history, the killers of that time grew rich, then their children grew with the exapmle of privilege and the duty to maintain it with the example already given- by any means we choose-, then their children and on until the present day. Is there a pedigree of sociopaths, a bred entitlement that is violent and conquering. Reinforced in familial, cultural and traditional myths. A self reinforcing system of feedback (courtesy of the media they own) that pushes harder and harder, accelerates the normalising of life through the death of others. Sudden deaths in wars, or the slow deaths of the poor, cutting welfare to make more bombs. The winner of the game wins because they have the largest capacity for cruelty.
So all that remains is- how do you fight that monster without becoming one yourself?

cluttered....what a joke. hearing gravel talk, it's like a human being on TV???? how weird! i love that clip on raw story. this man is laying it down! no wonder they don't like him around. he makes them sound like the collection of swaying plastic platitudes they are, the prepared poll-driven proselytizing you usually get from policiticians.

We need these grumpy old men like Gravel and Paul to cut the crap, and they seem to be doing a better job of uncluttering the debates (and the issues) than those echo-chamber candidates with their focus groups, "memes" (I still have never figured out what that word means, other than a high-tech version of "cliche"), sound-bytes and spin. Though I'll probably end up supporting another candidate (hint -- from a state just west of mine), I gotta say "Gravel rocks!"

On the larger issue of what the "mainstream" meadia (and our A-list bloggers) ignore, it's part of the same symptom that makes people complain that guys like Gravel and Paul "clutter" the debate. Does "Nezua" clutter those sites when he brings up race and class issues? Yup... but it needs said, and maybe force the echo chamber to deal with it. Am I a pain in the ass when I go on using Mexican history to comment obliquely on U.S./other affairs? Yup (I used to enjoy one site where I was called "Mexican Pravda" -- oh for some photoshop skills!). Do I think it opens up the discussion and maybe brings in other issues. Yup. Grumps of the world unite. We have nothing to lose but the bullshitters.

And finally, I don't know that "the medium is the message," for the A-listers so much as a demographic. The late Molly Ivins once pointed out that the biggest news story of all times was carved on two stone tablets and distributed by Moses, so HOW the distribution is done isn't nearly as important as WHAT is distributed.

I literally never understood what lunatics like Buchanan were talking about when they said we are being 'invaded' by people from the 'third world.' What invaded? But Santos has an explanation. It's a political invasion that the Buchanans want us to be afraid of. Like when we jammed Hawaii full of white people and then voted to annex the place.

And then the horrible Washington Post comes right out and tells us smugly that we would be better off with (even) fewer choices. "You need less democracy" should have been the headline. And I bet a majority of readers, polled after reading the editorial, would agree.

Richard, yours and Migra Matters were two sites I was pissed I forgot to include in that piece I did recently, that you reference. I wanted to include a bunch more blockquotes, but the thing go so damn long I wasn't planning that. But I will do so in the future, because I agree. You are in important grump to read in these times.

And I agree, "memes" is used loosely. Add a viral component to "cliche" you might have it. Add hunger to a cliche and you might have it.

--

Yeah, Tom. The Post is plain poison.

Mr. Xolagrafik-Jonez (great name),

Thanks for the response. But I'm suddenly worried that my first paragraph may leave room for a terrible misunderstanding of what I was trying to say there. Just to clarify, I don't have the invasion of Northern Mexico by the U.S., following the 1848 war, backwards in my mind. (If you're up for a bizarre experience, check out Aztlán in the Wikipedia.)

With my Hawaii example, I was just groping for some idea of what kind of thing Buchanan might possibly even want people to be afraid of. Because 'invasion' obviously doesn't make any sense at all.

-_- Can I, you know, NOT be a USian anymore?

I can't believe we're trying to expand our bases in other countries NOW, of all times. We're such pricks.

I remember going to Arizona a couple of years back. Besides leading me to get a glimpse of WHY the Kachina are the way they are, and introducing me to the prickly pear cactus which I love entirely too much, it also gave me the image of the Hopi and Navaho at their road-side sales posts, and the empty sales posts, and how there was this incredible white infrastructure built over and around and on top of where we really didn't belong. I walked upon their land and read about their history and saw where their ancestors lived... and now it's state owned and the people who killed their children are walking along paths put in by the colonialists to oo and ahh at a history we have no part in.

Ghosts in the land... I remember reading about Lame Deer and his reactions to the Ghost Dances of the Lakota. They danced to bring back the past, a world without me and my family. I wish it could have worked. That's such an act of profound hopelessness and helplessness; no one should feel that, much less entire cultures.

There is a real perception among USers that the US government should be able to ignore any treaties it signs and that this is an ok thing. I mentioned the treaty with Mexico after the US/Mexican war and that we signed into it that we would make government resources available to people in Spanish - WE SIGNED THIS - and the one person who DID respond said, "Well, it's been a long time since then. Can't they have learned English by NOW? Can the US just change the treaty?"

And that's just such a ...an ignorance to the hundreds or thousands of treaties the US has ignored that systematically lead to the murder of millions. And to the realities of language. And to the realities of culture. And so completely othering. It's saying that it's ok those people died because we're here now and those treaties weren't important anyway.

There's such a profound disconnect; I think the bomb in the mind is bigger than the media, because the entire educational system is complicit. Hel, the entire mindset of the culture is complicit, since there seems to be an underlying perception that since we bled for this land it's ours, as if land can be owned in any sort of lasting manner. If it's the blood in a land that makes it the "property" of anyone, we of European descent are a drop in the bucket.

But the awareness of that is notable only in its general absence.

Nezua, I read here every day, but don't comment often. So I'm delurking to give you my thanks for your words and your work and for making the space for dialogue with such great folks.

Tom, gracias! I'm big on titles and names. They are such a great opportunity to create. They are like a one-inch punch. But without any pushups.

i think your clarification confused me. :) what about the wikipedia entry in particular are you calling bizarre? i've seen it before...do you mean the whole thing? or their take on a particular angle? or their taking it on at all? explain if you like.

Buchanan, well. I read his book. Sad to say. I wrote a response that has been bouncing around the galleys of Chican@ Art Mag and has not seen the light of day yet because of publishing issues that concern the finances of the mag, entire. It's too bad. You'd maybe see the equivalent of a contentious JCG comment thread fest but probably from some of your favorite public pundits, were they to get the issue sent to them as planned. It may have been "incendiary." It was at least clever and confrontational. But all as it should be, I guess. I don't know. The problem with responding with biting satire to a group that lives on soundbytes of thought (pat buchanan's audience and yeah, JCG's comment thread is quickly becoming a poor metaphor here!) is that they will miss the satire's actual point and only respond fearfully and angrily based on their own soundbyte and racist view of what you are saying. So I wonder about articles like that given to such a raging fearaholic as Pat. It should come with a disclaimer/warning! (As Brits feel about Americans receiving much of their humor?)

All I can say about Pat's "INVASION" is that it's intended to scare people about the rising numbers of Mexicans, and it's the cry of the "nativist" (that they even appropriated the name "native" In that title really makes me hate to use it)—basically that White America is dying. It strikes a chord in many whites, because it is essentially true. But was America really ever white? The illusion reigned for a while. But the scary and gross and sad and not-quite coagulated truth is that this "GREAT EXPERIMENT" has been one long mission of conquest and unmitigated political deception and pain (that stops not even at our borders) and what Pat is scared of is that the fight is apparently not over and the score not settled. But that is, perhaps, the new "Fear-Filled" way to see things, if you will, the "post 9/11" way. Ironically, it is an "old" way to see the world. Many feel a new dawn approaches. One not reliant on the fears of a small group who wish to enslave and control other peoples for various reasons, mostly resources.

A way I prefer to see Pat's "invasion" is that we are experiencing a kind of osmotic process, just as inequal areas walled off by a membrane will equalize. The world is a cycle, a rhythm, like the body, like day and night, like cold and warm, dark and light. So a genetic homeostasis is occurring? Or a spiritual/karmic one? Or a geographical one? I dont know, but the buchanan soundbytes of the world are symptoms of an old disease, not pat's solely, it belongs to the human race, this thought that we can crystallize a reality, a moment, a part of the process and hold on to it forever, that we can control the flow, and not only control the flow, but shape it into a noose, or a yoke, and attach our Grand Dreams onto the backs, or the necks of other humans.

Fighting to maintain that illusion causes great pain. This is the condition of man engaging his nature. Pat is an example of a human failing in a few ways.

Yes, Deoridhe, I agree the bomb in the mind is much larger than the media. It is passed on in language we use and pass on, the ignorance of parents, it is the schools, it is religion. As you said, the mainstream culture. I do talk about all these things often and very much agree. The bomb can be snuffed out though, and a whole sense return, I believe.

You bring up a great point about a long pattern of ignorance and cruelty reigning over people. About what "Treaties" mean. I talk about that too. About what "law" means in a nation such as this, where laws are conveniences to help a ruling class continue to get rich and rule and disregard the rights and lives of so many human beings. Potent thoughts, thanks.

Joanna, I appreciate that! Thanks for coming 'round and letting me know. We welcome your thoughts.

Mr. X-J,

Sorry that my 'clarification' was not clear. To me what seemed bizarre about the Wikipedia entry was that they gave such short shrift to the political idea of Aztlán. And that little bit seems slanted in a very heavy-handed way:

"the name Aztlán was taken up by some revolutionary Chicano movement activists of the 1960s and 1970s to refer to the Southwestern United States that Mexico lost or sold to the United States that they suggested rightfully belonged to Mexico, ignoring the treaty, the sale and the Gadsden Purchase."

Well, where's the word 'war?' (And we all know how serious the U.S. is about honoring treaties.)

Maybe I'm just showing my age here. I ran into the word Aztlán in the 1970s (maybe first in Hunter Thompson, I wasn't a very serious kid).

Also, in the section on Aztec traditions, I was bothered by some stuff that sounded dismissive: "there is no evidence of the actual existence of Aztlán, never mind any proof of its specific location." Which I probably took the wrong way. I was thinking, what? Take a flight to Albuquerque. But I know they weren't talking about politics. I guess.

Back to the death throes of poor Buchanan's undistinguished career. I'm very impressed, intimidated even, that you managed to read his whole book. Just seeing the cover makes me depressed. I'm glad whenever I see people responding to his craziness, and I hope your article gets out there.

Hey tom,

yeah, what do you expect from wikipedia discussing something like that. they boil it down, but it just doesn't taste the same. i would never try to fight/edit with wikipeda people who taKe the project very very seriously, yet it retains many slants that are not seen as slants to some, or it reaches a dull, puddingly "neutral" that bends out of its way to avoid saying what really happened somewhere at some time. i quote them but you just never trust those links...they evolve. great place to get a quick overview of something.

i do like the idea of evolving encyclopedia, though. the whole wikipedia really really resonates with the isaac asimov Foundation series, where a generation dedicated themselves to writing the definitive encyclopedia. but of course, all history is slanted, so what can you expect. thats why sometimes when you want answers into Chicano (for example) history, you have to choose your books carefully. so much slanted stuff against the Brown™ makes up mainstream media and literature and culture here in america. lies continuing themselves even in the form of subtle rewrites. its about the source, and wikipedia's can't be trusted, ultimately. common opinion might form a common perception of something, that doesn't mean it's truth to all the people they discuss and attempt to define and tell the history of.

Ugh. Don't get me started on Wikipedia. Lowest common denominator. Then when you actually do know something on the subject and put that in it's removed by someone with an agenda. I used to edit for them but no more.

Re: osmosis -- I like the analogy. We are eventually going to have a much 'browner' America than we do now.

This all feels like a relatively few people trying to grab what they can while they can, and damn everyone else. Keep the masses in the dark as long as you can because when they find out the truth, all hell's going to break loose.

Okay, another great, thought-provoking post. As a native American, I say hell yes, Truth, brother! As an American citizen, I say...Well, these 300 year old property rights are interesting, and factual. But how useful are they, actually? Is it going to be like Israel/Palestine/blah blah blah. My ancestors have better rights than your ancestors...? What use is that? Is the government going to suddenly feel bad that they stole this land and cut a check to me and every other Native American? Nope.not gonna happen. I know you are the Unapologetic Mexican, and I'll try not to let what my nationalism get too much in the way here. I wont say racism, cuz I'm kind of a mongrel myself, half indian(as we ignorant Texas Native Americans STILL call ourselves), half Irish. And although I have got into plenty of fights about it- Mexicans are largely half "indian" too. So I don't figure we have much difference Dna-tickaly. But anyway- I don't have a bone to pick with Illegal immigrants too much. Except that the law is the law. And I wish that a few more proud people that consider themselves Mexicans before they consider themselves Americans would put more effort into not trying to Make America a better place, but try and make MEXICO a better place. I know America's fucked right now, you are preaching to the choir on that one. But I do say that it drives me nuts when I read all this Mexican pride stuff and everyone Hispanic I know STILL calls Mexico, well, basically, a shithole. I think that America could better serve both North and South America by implementing some real economic endeavors in Mexico proper, instead of letting Corporations lead the charge of sweat shops and factories that pay Mexicans shit wages. Mexico needs some reform. Shouldn't everyone be working to make change in Mexico? I don't want redneck slobs shooting people coming over the border, I don't want Border patrols or U.S. soldiers doing it either. I don't want to waste money building a fucking wall. I want to make Mexico a nation worthy of all this Mexican pride. I want to funnel money not to immigrants rights groups, but Rights groups IN Mexico for Mexicans in their own country. I want a Mexico that is solvent and successful and content to stand on its own two feet. So, how do we go about that? Or am I just completely wrong here? I could be. I like the way you write,Nez, and wear your heart on your sleeve, so It encourages me to speak my mind here- the way I do in my hood, where I am the Second favorite wedo on the block.

Deoridhe.. wonderful, wonderful truth in your comment

Well, these 300 year old property rights are interesting, and factual. But how useful are they, actually?

They are useful when we want to get righteous about WHOSE LAND we are willing to get murderous or hateful over keeping off of it. As I see it, of course. They are useful when we want to be educated on why "racism" per se still very much exists and where it comes from ("The Haunted Land" as I call it), or why "international policy" has gone so awry in this land, where is the genesis. Knowing those laws, or even that they exist in the form they do shows you why when you read "this land was formed on white supremacist standards and beliefs," coming from a strident member of the Brown™ you immediately know this person has been informed by actuality and law and history, and thus, the tone of their delivery on these facts is largely irrelevant as pertains to your reponse.

I wont say racism, cuz I'm kind of a mongrel myself, half indian(as we ignorant Texas Native Americans STILL call ourselves), half Irish.

I think you are saying that being "half indian" means you can't be said to be using racist thought when you want Mexicans to stay out because "the law is the law." It's a very convoluted delivery, with all due respect, of course. I guess I would just say that do you really want Mexicans do stay out because of your great love of "The Law," or is it anything else? Because a lot of people say "the law is the law," but sometimes it just means "I don't want Mexicans here and I have a good excuse behind my feelings."

The point of the first quote I made, also, is that "the law is the law" is hardly a true justification for a moral soul. It is a legal justification, and often, for immoral behaviors.

Mexicans are largely half "indian" too.

A smaller point, but Mexicans are "largely half" ? Mexicans are generally thought of as being on a continuum from "Mestizo" to "Indio", that is to say any given amount of pure Indian blood on one side (there are still tribes that have not mixed with the main society) and Indian blood mixed with Euro blood, and perhaps African American blood. So we cannot say Mexicans, overall, are "half" indian, and we can't say "largely half" ever, about anything, it makes no sense! "Half" is an exact measure. "Largely" is a coloring, an adjective, a subjective word.

And I wish that a few more proud people that consider themselves Mexicans before they consider themselves Americans would put more effort into not trying to Make America a better place, but try and make MEXICO a better place....

I think if you read some of the history and understandings of current events that I have, you might change your mind a little. Because America is not only greatly responsible for the condition Mexico is sliding into, but other parts of the world too. I dont' have time to be exhaustive, but read up on NAFTA to start. The entire history. The way we passed it, what we say it is not, what it is in actuality, what we gain from it, what Mexico has been losing, what it foretells for Mexico, and what that means to the entire ocean of connected politics and geography.

Making America "better" would benefit not only Mexico but the entire world. I appreciate your intent in the final graf. But it is an illusion, to my mind, to hose down the driveway and say you've cleaned up, when bodies in the garage are draining under the door, over the asphalt and down to the road.

Is the government going to suddenly feel bad that they stole this land and cut a check to me and every other Native American?

I see this red herring a lot. It gets old.

There are choices other than "turn a blind eye and ignore everyone but those in power" and "send a select number of people checks based on their ancestry".

Out of curiosity, what tribe(s) are you?

Great rebuttals. I have no doubt that your thoughts and considerations would/will alter mine- and that's why I made my comments, because I truly wanted your answers, not just hear the empty echo of my typing. Oh, I don't doubt that Mexico's "Slide" as you put it, is due to America's actions in the 1800s etc. But it's a long time later, and there's been progress, limited by widespread corruption. But can everything wrong in Mexico truly be blamed on America? At what point is the past the past and the future of Mexico something that can be molded into a greater country?

I tell you this much- America may not have as much of a future as a lot of these immigrants may believe, given our current government. But I realize that, in my direct experience, the illegal immigrants I have known and went to school with, hired, and worked with- were simply driven by one desire= going where the jobs are, working etc. I know a more than a few legal immigrants who resent the fact that they went through the system legally and all these others just broke the law. Laws will have to be changed. But then we will have the legal immigrants who resent the Newly pardoned immigrants who will resent the still yet illegal immigrants to come. You just can't open up the borders and say "Squat at will". No matter how much you "fix" America, there's no way to accomodate an endless supply of immigrants of countries that are broke. This ain't Utopia, by a longshot.

And Hell, call me a racist if ya want to. I have my moments. I think we all do. You got to fight against your families' passed-on racism, no matter who you are, plus whatever bad habits you may have picked up on your own.

I am not against Mexican Immigrants or Irish Immigrants or Iraqi Immigrants. Go through legal channels though. And if Life in Mexico is truly that bad, then as a good neighbor and in order to offer solutions, the U.S. should be putting money into beneficial projects that help economic and social development in Mexico city and all across the country, and offer incentives to the government of Mexico itself.

I have no doubt that the history of how Americans fucked over Mexicans is a sad one. I am from Texas. I know quite a bit about it. I am Chippewa and Cheyenne, myself. I don't think we got a very good deal ourselves. But history is one big long story one group of one race of humans stealing from another, over and over. Glorify your race and your pride all you feel like. I'm not going to glorify one race over another. Just like I'm not going to persecute one over the other. Yes, this land was stolen from my people. Will I lead an uprising to get revenge? NO. Will I work towards equal rights for all in America? yes.

But I think the answer to Mexican-American equality starts by helping make Mexico a better place to live.

But it's a long time later, and there's been progress, limited by widespread corruption. But can everything wrong in Mexico truly be blamed on America? At what point is the past the past and the future of Mexico something that can be molded into a greater country?

You're aware that our current actions aren't exactly helping, right? That "widespread corruption" you mention happens on both sides of the fence.

this discussion reminds me of my immigration law professor in law school who talked about "is'ness vs. ought'ness" - what the law is vs. what it should be. sadly, within the world of immigration law (not to mention most other areas of law, too), the law as it is (and as it has been) just plain sucks. just because the law says one thing doesn't mean it's right (or that it should be followed blindly). unjust laws (and policies and behaviors) must be changed. it's the "ought'ness" that we need to reach and fight for, using both the legal system as well as other forms of activism, organizing and advocacy.

i'm not sure what the discussion is about, anymore, actually. and fade, i find your comments—especially the last one—so rife with herrings, appeals to authority, sweeping generalizations, fallacy of bifurcation....etc, i.e., faulty logic, that i really am not sure i'm willing to engage each instance when i'm not even sure what point i would be driving at or serving with all the effort!

anyway, it's all classic Troll stylie. no offense, Fade. but it is.

*snorts* Good form, though. Attempted to engage the discussion juuust enough to seem reasonable, before suddenly veering off to hide under a bridge.

But on another note, I like what michael said. That is/ought distinction is pretty central to a lot of the debates we have in Left Blogistan. I feel like someone should take that, and a couple other central points, and nail them to the heads of everybody who gets near a keyboard.

*sighs* The one time I don't use the preview button, I forget to close a tag. Pretend nothing is bolded after the word "Michael."

fixed your bold tag.

Thanks!

sure. and i hear you. i almost always am seeing/thinking in terms of "what ought to be" instead of "oh well thats the way it is" and have had repeated conflict with others over this very gap. it's what they call "being idealistic." jeje.

i'm with you! why be tired and hopeless? without a compass pointed toward "the way it ought to be," we'd be stagnating. somewhere. under a bridge!

i forgot to mention that the professor who taught the is/ought was joyce hughes, the first african-american woman to get a tenure-track position at a majority-white law school. talk about someone facing obstacles and blazing a trail...

It always travels in a circle, too; I remember this dynamic from my professional ethics class:

"But it's just the way companies do it!"
"But you see all these problems; perhaps it's time for a better solution."
"Well, yeah, maybe, but it's still going to be this way. Come on, it's standard practice."
"You can change practices, you know?"
"But it'd cost so much and it'd be so hard to do!"
"In the end it'd be worth the cost and the strain."
"True but...meh, it's not gonna happen. They're not going to change."
"If we put pressure on them, they would."
"True, but...it's just the way companies do it!"

Such arguments and their circular logic against idealism are moronic (there was a telling rebuttal by comedian Mark Thomas to an arms dealer who said 'well if we didn't do it someone else would.' to which he replied 'well we shouldn't worry if someone rapes a child, if they didn't do it someone else would'). In other words shrugging that's just 'the way it is' is not an actual argument. It is also a tacit acceptance of the status quo which to all intents and purposes is support. Unless we dream of what can be and ought to be we are just sheeple. And while some think what ought to be is terrible in realisation (neo-cons etc), a good compass should point to justice, fairness and kindness, which are all in the same direction. Although that land may be far off from right here and now. And it seems the road less travelled. Can get lonely out here in the woods ( I better stop before I come upon a cottage with 3 bowls of porridge cooling on the table).

Re: The Iraq parliament vote — The AP (finally) got off their butts and ran it on the wire earlier today (well, yesterday), so it ought to be in Friday's paper, but they're running it as a "A teeny, tiny, itty, bitty number of CRAZY SADR-IST AL-QAIDA TERR'ISTS voted against American 'help' but those sane Iraqis that let us pay them off are still A-OK with us." Only, you know, all coded.

As for the whole "enter legally" thing ... U.S. immigration laws have been racist and classist since the 1870s, and have only gotten moreso in recent years. In my opinion, that makes them unjust laws, and when it comes to unjust laws, I'm with a pretty well-known dead white guy by the name of Thoreau in thinking that we have a duty to practice civil disobedience.

Well, I realize I Am out of my league, here, as far as "herrings" and my poor writing talents. I don't know what defense to make that I ain't a troll, except to say every thought I put down was an honest one, that I actually believe. I do tend to ramble a lot, and that dilutes whatever points I was making. Uh. anyway- I think trolls come into the comments with their minds made up- and trying to ARGUE with the poster. I am not. I like your balls to the wall approach. I grew up in a the projects. I am as pasty pale as your normal white boy, although I do have some Indian features. I grew up in a spanish neighborhood, I was a member of a gang in the hood, til I got away from all that. I currently live in the spanish ghetto and most of my friends are diehard mexicans. All my family is white trash, though. And most of them are hardcore redneck racists. I am an avowed "redneck" in the purest sense of the word, which is a derogatory term that rich whites applied to the working class poor whites whose necks were red because they were bent to work in the fields next to migrant mexicans.

But all this history shit is neat I guess. I wouldn't care to put it down, except as that line you put in your newest post applies to me- about when POC talk about white people who are racist and I kind of blanch and try to distinguish myself. Do you not do the same at times in the reverse situation? I understand, and have posted before on my blog, that white people have all the upper-hands/benefits, so reverse-racism is pretty well justified. But justified or not, it doesn't make it any less ugly.

I, do want to distinguish myself, and I DO have white guilt for the actions of other whites, even my own family. I think its good and is from the empathy I have for everyone. POC get the shit end of the stick and we need to address it. But I guess I have a lot to learn, so I will kinda shut-the-fuck-up and listen more. I HAD a troll on my blog. I ain't one.

okay, Fade, the "troll" comment came in because it is Troll Style to be like "I'm one of 'us,' and 'we' are wrong." It's the using this "half indian" thing to make your points, or to try and knock down mine, which are pro-indigenous in most contexts.

as far as the points on logic, not so tough. i think you can look them up (Rules of Logic?) on wikipedia or certainly google, if you did you'd see how they applied to your comments. it would make your statements clearer. easier to engage. weed out the baloney a little. we all could stand to read over the list every once in a while. we all fall prey to pushing our feelings or thoughts and propping them up falsely.

that's sort of my basic complaint and sense. it's that you have a feeling and you are just layering on sentences to push that point. that's this loose 'Free associating" that you probably feel you are doing, but to me it seems like logical fallacy after logical fallacy. appeal to authority, to ignorance, to anecdote, apeal to intelligence, either/or fallacy, sweeping generalization, etc. i mean one or two here or there is fine, but i can't even wade into that graf you wrote. there's just no point. i'm not trying to be condescending. i just dont want to waste my time, especially when this post—which you responded to—didn't further an argument i consider settled here.

okay, you got touched off by my posting and recounting history that implies things that bother you. you clearly want to come in here and talk about how its wrong that Mexicans come across the border, but this post wasn't even on immigration. okay, you can bring any conversation you want. but is it productive? or are you just spilling over with your bias? do you think you will get far arguing me on your first day or two around the joint, arguing my basic stances? the core stances that underline much this entire blog?

the dillio is that i am not going to argue with people about my basic stances here. just not going to do it. certain things we take for granted here or dont' bother reading because they will CONSTANTLY bother you. and your constant rebuttals would piss me off. and i don't like to be angry. it hurts me.

you don't need "white guilt." you just need to learn how to think of other humans as just as worthy of you. just as worthy of the ground they stand, of the food they hunger for, of being treated fairly, of writing their own history, of making their own decisions. you are no savior because you are white, you are no better just because you are white. you are no smarter just because you are white. you are no more able to make decisions for others because you are white. neither do you need to be punished for being white. you don't need to suffer. you (in my view of things) just need to remap some synaptic pathways, maybe. open the heart. at least that's my take. hey, these are things i need to do, too.

there is no such thing as "reverse racism." that is another fact i will not argue. now a brown person may absorb White Supremacist thought and be racist against other brown people (See Malkin), but a brown person fearing, being biased against, disliking whites is just not racism. there is no years and years and years of power and exploitation and domination and cruelty behind the brown person's antipathy, if their feelings even reach that deep. and there is much history to back up their bias. this i won't argue.

would this suck for a white person realizing the history and hate and murder behind so much racism? yes. what should they do, how should they handle it, what about their plight? not my worry. not my problem. i care, but i have more pressing things to attend to. i appreciate white people who are cool people who are caring people who are working to be good humans as i am. that is their journey. that is their pain if they have it. but this is not the place that will center it. there's the rest of the country for that.

i think you are right: before speaking toooo much, it is a good idea to stick around, read, absorb. feel out your ground, the environment, the "rules." it's what i do at other blogs that are woman-centered or otherwise-centered. any person who comes into a space that is either feminist or brown or not centered on their type and situation and views—and feels the need to begin laying down the law, or thier anti-take is playing into a very common and arrogant and regrettable reflex. and will be banned at many sites, ignored or muted at others. i am taking the time to explain to you in the event you are sincere. it's what i would want done for me.

gracias.

i don't understand the white-blinded 'mestizos' on this side... dont they remember and understand the 'indian removal act' was a law that illegalized their existence on coveted property? just 'cuz its a law dont make it right ... and public outcry is a one of the most important initial steps to make laws = righteous.

yeah, i have to say its sad to find it. but maybe not...maybe its an opportunity to remember these things like those you have pointed out, and thus change....

NLXJ,

Thanks for taking so much time and thought to respond to a complete newcomer. I've been trying to process it all. Among other things, I hear your advice to look at Mr. Buchanan's failings as human, as something that I am vulnerable to as well.

Gracias.