Ok, now this:

And now, he isn't being a big enough man to work through it and learn to stand up for his culture despite the hate that was leveled on him by the dominant culture at the time. Instead, like Malkin et al, he is taking the weak path, joining by becoming. Turning the hate on the lesser, the newer, the Other.

... is just what I've been searching for. Brilliant. Thank you.

Pitiyankee....

Ahh, the joys of assimilation...giving up rich, vibrant cultural histories, languages, ways of being and knowing, for the "benefit" of being able to be White in America(tm).
What I wouldn't give to know how to speak Gaelic or Swedish or French or Cherokee or to be in touch with any of that richness, but I can't. Not really. Not as an insider, having it be part of my essence. I can only learn it as an academic exercise, like putting on a coat. Mine, maybe, but not me.

I cannot understand the depths of hatred and jealousy that people like Tancredo exhibit when they insist that others do as their ancestors were forced to do.

I think you are being awfully polite to Tancredo, Nez, and I suspect all that nonsense about the grandparents is his lie of the week. My grandmother never learned English and lived in a community where most of her peers didn't speak it either, they read Polish or Lithuanian or Georgian or Russian newspapers and went to Russian Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox churches and essentially lived Slavic lives in very large and self contained Slavic communities and that culture died with them. The food lives on of course.
So, screw you Tancredo. Can't you get the picture? So many of my Latin friends in NYC who are third generation can't speak any Spanish at all {well OK, they know what Salsa is} and don't care.
If I moved to South America, by the third generation my family probably wouldn't speak English either unless they went out and studied it.
Tancredo, paisan, what is so scary about all of this?
Are you brain damaged?

A pitiful shell of person! He epitomizes what Plato warned about in his death and decay of government discourse. Democracy is the last stage, and it is the rugged individualism that is becoming rampant in the U.S. version that is accelerating the decline here. He would thrown anyone under the bus. There are reports that he was ashamed of the ethnic connotation raised by his mother's spaghetti dinners to help him in his early political fundraising days. He longs to be a WASP. Italy has a rich, and long cultural history, including facism. Some people can never learn from experience and hence cannot truly considered to be educated. Poor souls.

well said Chicano2nd. i should have a big delish spaghetti night in mi casa and call it something like "Tancredo Thursday" just to sort of offer the universe some karmic sandbaggage.

--

RC, i'm just loving that way! what can i say. its what everyone says about me. "he's just too damn nice." i'm sure you've heard that around. alot.

Maybe a new banner there, Nez. "He's Very Nice -- And Don't Forget It, Amig@!"

I think he's jsut the right amount of nice. I think people can expect thoughtfulness from Nez, but he also lays down the law and let's people know that this is his place when need be. Sounds good to me.

And LOL at the culture has died out except for the food.

I want to second what RC said. My great-grandpappy spoke nine languages when he got off the boat from the old country back in 1906, and even though he was skilled with English, he never lost the use of his other languages. But more than that, lots of his neighbors never lost *theirs* either.

But of course, some did . . . driving around the countryside where my family got its start in the States (SE Ohio), my dad can point out little ethnic communities that either once existed or which still exist in some form or other.

"Oh, yeah, the Finns live over there around that hill. I rented some land from them when I was in high school, and raised wheat. They're all tall, blonde and blue-eyed. I had a crush on one of the daughters when I was a boy."

"You go over that ridge and back down into the hollow a few miles, and there's a little German village. They were all Mennonites when I was a kid. Probably still are. My mom would go there to get whole wheat flour, because they ran a mill."

"How about we go over to that Polish butcher shop and get some sausages? We can grill 'em up for lunch."

"It's gone now, but when I was a boy, there was a big Dutch family that ran a dairy over there. All of that area was pasture, and the stalls and milking machines were in a building over there. They made pretty good cheese, as I remember."

"Your Hunkie (dad-slang for Hungarian) great-uncle lived in that house over there by the railroad crossing."

I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping a grip on your cultural heritage, and I don't think that cultural heritage is anything to be ashamed of, either. If rednecks down here can fly the Confederate battle flag, then nobody needs to get all edgy when the brown folks want to habla some Espanol amongst themselves.

Tancredo's position isn't about immigrants at all. He's just a demagogue and his xenophobia is the magnet he uses to get votes.
He is scary because he gives the cretins of the electorate a voice.
He also shapes that voice and strengthens it. Seems to foster some legitimacy for cruelty and ignorance.
It's sad that there is not now enough public opposition to that voice, opposition coming from other legislators.
There needs to be much more.
It is amazing that Tancredo and Dobbs and most of the Republican field are not deeply embarrassed by their own speeches and broadcasts
I would characterize this lack of shame {and as Nez says -- empathy} as a mental illness on a par with sociopathic behavior.
That is why it scares me.
Aside from my comments that attempt humor, I am sure that Tancredo knows exactly what he is doing, does it for sick motives, and will do it until he is voted out.

Well, in all fairness, once confronted with the fact that there are plenty of caucasian folks in this country who are holding onto their culture and traditions (and which he isn't all upset about), Mr. Tancredo can then either claim that his position really is about immigrants (and expose himself as a racist) or admit that he's a liar (and consequently a racist). I agree with you, RC -- I was just trying to walk Mr. Tancredo's position into a tacit admission of racism.

Frankly, I think he's full of it with his claims of his Grammy and Grampy not being *allowed* to speak Italian. What, they couldn't speak Italian at their own dinner table if they wanted to? And that total fabrication is some sort of putative reason why Hispanics in the US shouldn't be *allowed* to speak Spanish if and when they so choose?

Tancredo's a lying POS, IMO. A lying POS who apparently hates his own family's culture and heritage as much as he hates those belonging to other people.

How sad.

You have this all wrong. Tancredo's stance isn't about looking backwards towards his ancestors, that is what pro-illegal alien supporters do. They want to support all immigration to honor their immigrant grandparents. Anti's look forward instead to their descendants futures. Our descendants are the ones who are going to have to live with the long-term consequences of America's immigration policies. Rightly or wrongly (rightly I believe) us anti's think America will better place to live (less crime, less inequality, less inter-ethnic conflict) if we have a good long immigration pause.

"less inter-ethnic conflict." you're a funny sort. its all grand to say being that the USA has profited so much from slavery and cheap labor, from blacks, and chinese and mexicans in the mines and fields and factories, and on the land stolen from Indians. very good joke!

i, too, am "forward looking." as in eventually non-whites will outnumber whites. i think that will be a good thing. whether its blacks, asians, latin americans, i dont care. but i, too, want less inter-ethnic conflict. and i think the best way to that is just more and more and more mixing. and going by the census numbers, we're on our way.

here's to the future!

pjgoober, con respeto, you're totally off base.

Tancredo *himself* brought up his ancestors. To claim that his stance is about something other than his ancestors is not only wrong, it completely ignores the substance of what he said.

Furthermore, you need to drop the charged language, e.g. "pro-illegal alien supporters" and "less inter-ethnic conflict," assuming you want to have any sort of meaningful conversation with the people here. Frankly, it's people like Tancredo and the Minutemen who are fomenting "inter-ethnic conflict," in both word and deed. But you go right ahead and dream your dreams.

Well, I am for the mixing too, my family proves that, but it wasn't actually a plan, things happen like that.
On the other hand, I live in Puerto Rico, a very mixed place in terms of Arawak, African, European history and constant intermarriage over 500 years.
Yet, sadly, racism is alive and well here. There is still a long way to go to get past the nonsense.

Furthermore, you need to drop the charged language, e.g. "pro-illegal alien supporters" and "less inter-ethnic conflict,".

"Where Black and Brown Collide"
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9587776&CFID=20222&CFTOKEN=d42b192514b2945e-CFA95BA6-B27C-BB00-01438DAA65F1C8D3

Those stark-raving mad demagogues at the economist seem to agree with me that inter-ethnic conflict exists in America, despite the Economist being generally pro-amnesty and pro-immigration in all circumstances imaginable. Really, this isn't that controversial. It's a mainstream concept. And inter-ethnic conflict isn't even really charged language. Google the phrase. The first link that comes up is an academic paper about Los Angeles! Another link says: "Conflict in the House: Interethnic Conflict as Change Agent, Change as Conflict Instigator." Social activists (I am sure self-described "change agents") are casually using language you consider so incendiary and invalidating.

About the words pro-illegal alien, I admit that is strange language that is pretty stupid to use when trying to persuade.

"i, too, am "forward looking." as in eventually non-whites will outnumber whites. i think that will be a good thing. whether its blacks, asians, latin americans, i dont care. but i, too, want less inter-ethnic conflict. and i think the best way to that is just more and more and more mixing. and going by the census numbers, we're on our way."

Several of your premises are wrong. The first one is that whites are the main ones who are capable of instigating or sustaining inter-ethnic conflict. A look at world history, past or present, should disprove that. Also, you should look at the voting patterns in the south of the US. Blacks there have always been closer to parity with whites than in the rest of the country. The result is block voting by both groups for separate parties, in contrast to the rest of the US where whites vote far more evenly for both parties. The possible result of making whites a minority (or even close to it) are to nationalize these voting patterns. We could end up with (more or less) a white party and a non-white party, if whites start block voting like minorities do now. Make whites a minority, and they might just start acting like minorities in ways you didn't expect or hope for.

See this quote from Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew:
"Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that..."
http://www.seekingalpha.com/article/2841-der-spiegel-interview-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-ews-sgf

With or without whites present, people block-vote in multi-racial democracies where their is no overwhelming majority. I don't want to live in a country with a white party and a non-white party. But the immigration policies you advocate could lead directly to it.

About mixing decreasing inter-ethnic conflict, I can agree with that if you mean intermarriage of people that are already in the USA. Mexico nearly fully absorbed it's black minority this way long ago. The US would have a lot less racial conflict if it had done the same. But not kidnapping the slaves from africa in the first place might have worked as well. So if you mean that deliberately bringing gigantic amounts of disparate people's together that hadn't formerly been living together actually decreases inter-ethnic conflict, then I have some oceanfront property to sell you Kansas (my apologies if this isn't what you meant).

But there is a problem with hoping that interracial marriage will make America's immigration policies turn out fine: Interracial marriage rates (though not absolute numbers) are actually decreasing among hispanics and asians as their numbers grow. This makes sense, the larger the community, finding someone suitable of your own race is much harder.
See: " Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage" http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2007/00000072/00000001/art00004

Ok, that abstract in the last link is kind of hard to make sense of.
This is a bit clearer:
"IMMIGRATION SLOWS RATE OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC INTERMARRIAGES" by Zhenchao Qian
excerpt: "Immigration has played a key role in unprecedented declines in interracial and inter-ethnic marriage in the United States during the 1990s, according to a new study."
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/imimarry.htm

"the immigration policies i advocate"?

what are those, pray tell?

"what are those, pray tell?"

Lots of it.

well, at least you make as much sense now as you did at the start. i dig consistency and thanks for that!

pjg: "Those stark-raving mad demagogues at the economist seem to agree with me that inter-ethnic conflict exists in America, despite the Economist being generally pro-amnesty and pro-immigration in all circumstances imaginable."

I challenge you to show me where I claimed that *no* inter-ethnic conflict exists in America. Quite the contrary, I specifically stated that "(f)rankly, it's people like Tancredo and the Minutemen who are fomenting "inter-ethnic conflict," in both word and deed."

Given that, it is quite obvious that you:

A) Don't read what others are posting, or
B) Don't understand it, or
C) Are pressing forward in order to make some sort of point.

If C is the case, then why don't you simply MAKE your poiint?

pjg: "And inter-ethnic conflict isn't even really charged language"

All very well, but that's not what I said. I specifically said "less inter-ethnic conflict," (which you said first) and I objected to the context in which you apparently used it -- which seems to be that inter-ethnic conflict is to be blamed on immigrants.

pjg: "Google the phrase."

Oh, good god. Are you spoiling for some sort of linkwar?

pjg: "Social activists (I am sure self-described "change agents") are casually using language you consider so incendiary and invalidating."

I used neither of those words. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth and presuming to know what I think. You may fare better in this discussion if you *ask* people what they think before you start berating them for what you presume is in their heads.

pjg: "About the words pro-illegal alien, I admit that is strange language that is pretty stupid to use when trying to persuade."

I hardly find it "strange." I find it "accusatory." And your behavior subsequent to that point has hardly served to dissuade me from that impression.

pjg: "The first one is that whites are the main ones who are capable of instigating or sustaining inter-ethnic conflict. A look at world history, past or present, should disprove that."

I believe that a look at world history, either past or present, will *support* his premise, and coincidentally disprove yours.

pjg: "Also, you should look at the voting patterns in the south of the US. Blacks there have always been closer to parity with whites than in the rest of the country."

As a long-term denizen of the Deep South who first took up residence here in the 1960s, I'd like to tell you that you are laughably incorrect. It's quite possible that Bull Connor's firehoses and police dogs didn't exist in *your* living memory, but I can assure you that they did happen within the living memories of people down here. The first 2/3s of the 20th Century in the Deep South were spent in the pursuit of *preventing* African-American voting, not in advancing AA voting to "parity." Frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

pjg: "The result is block voting by both groups for separate parties, in contrast to the rest of the US where whites vote far more evenly for both parties. The possible result of making whites a minority (or even close to it) are to nationalize these voting patterns. We could end up with (more or less) a white party and a non-white party, if whites start block voting like minorities do now. Make whites a minority, and they might just start acting like minorities in ways you didn't expect or hope for."

Ludicrous. Why would voting patterns in the South override national voting patterns? Simply because of a change to the racial demographics? Come now; surely you recognize the difference between correlation and causation?

pjg: "See this quote from Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew:"

I fail to see your point here. Please elaborate.

pjg: "With or without whites present, people block-vote in multi-racial democracies where their is no overwhelming majority."

I do not accept that as axiomatic. In fact, a cogent case could be made that under the autocratic and elitist Mr. Lee, racial minority groups did not believe their voices would be heard in government *unless* they banded together to elect candidates from their own groups. Mr. Lee's government was notably harsh on personal and political freedoms, and I hardly think that this Singaporean petri dish is the kind of empirical evidence that supports your claims.

pjg: "I don't want to live in a country with a white party and a non-white party. But the immigration policies you advocate could lead directly to it."

I don't believe so, but I'm willing to see what other support you might care to offer.

pjg: "So if you mean that deliberately bringing gigantic amounts of disparate people's together that hadn't formerly been living together actually decreases inter-ethnic conflict, then I have some oceanfront property to sell you Kansas (my apologies if this isn't what you meant)."

You're sort of a dick, aren't you? You put words in people's mouths, ascribe thoughts to them and then caper wildly about as if you've bitch-slapped them in some sort of academic debate?

Look, kid, you need to simmer down, ask questions and try to figure out where people stand on some of these points. Otherwise, if you remain on the course upon which you appear to be embarked, you're headed straight for a factual, academic and figurative internet beat-down.

If you want to know what I meant, act like an adult and *ask* me.

pjg: "Lots of it."

Please elaborate. I do not believe our host likes you presuming to read his mind any more than I like you presuming to read mine.

thanks for taking time to school the fool, tomás. that was fun to watch.

"Quite the contrary, I specifically stated that "(f)rankly, it's people like Tancredo and the Minutemen who are fomenting "inter-ethnic conflict," in both word and deed."

Are they just going to go away? The
Ok, Thomas. Here is an olive branch. I'll make my best attempt at being civil as I can from now on.

"I hardly find it "strange." I find it "accusatory." And your behavior subsequent to that point has hardly served to dissuade me from that impression."

Since you were indeed accused of being "pro-illegal alien", here is a more civil elaborating question for you and everyone else. Assume we pass comprehensive reform, with earned legalization for the undocumented as well as expand legal immigration by a finite amount (say 33%-50%). If new undocumented immigrants show up afterwards, is it ok with you guys to deport them, even if they have put down deep roots including US born children?

"I believe that a look at world history, either past or present, will *support* his premise, and coincidentally disprove yours."

Arab slave trade (blacks and europeans, that's where the word slav comes from).
Mongols. Huns. Late 1990's Anti-Chinese Indonesian riots. Violence between muslims and christians (differing in ethnicity as well) in Indonesia. Darfur. Long oppression of Berbers by Arabs in North Africa. Current violent oppression of pygmies in the Congo and (think of it as "finishing the job" of the millenia long Bantu expansion). The 1st millenium cleansing of pagans from the arabian peninsula. Aztec oppression of surrounding people's. Chinese oppression of the Uighurs and Tibet. Early 20th century Anti-Sephardic riots through-out the arab world. Armenian genocide. Khmer Rouge (destroyed not only the bourgeoise, but purposefully targeted entire minority groups as well). Long (and present-day) oppression of the Ainu in Japan. Post-Vietnam war oppression of the Chinese in Vietnam. Riots against black University students in China for dating Chinese women. White voter suppression by black political leaders in black majority Noxubee County, Mississipi. White people are not unique in either their desire for nor actual undertaking of inter-ethnic violence and oppression.

Also, note this poll that came out a day or two ago: "US minorities don't trust each other"
Excerpt: "Sixty-one percent of Hispanics, 54 percent of Asians and 47 percent of African-Americans said they would rather do business with whites than members of the other two groups.

“The poll reaffirms that while race relations between ethnic groups and whites grab the headlines, there are also serious racial problems between minority groups in America,” said Sergio Bendixen, an expert on Hispanic and multilingual polling."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6qHU0LD6MvZS2pj_v1XTg6OOk2A

If minorities trust whites more than they trust each-other, then turning whites into a minority in the US will surely not decrease, but instead increase inter-ethnic conflict.

I'll continue addressing the things you said in a bit, but for now feel free to rebut the above.

""Quite the contrary, I specifically stated that "(f)rankly, it's people like Tancredo and the Minutemen who are fomenting "inter-ethnic conflict," in both word and deed."

Are they just going to go away? The"

Please disregard that for now.... I am still thinking of how to respond to that one.

That's what I get for offering Tomas an olive branch - absolutely nothing. No one can hate quite like a self-righteous white liberal.

actually i really think tomás was the one who wasted his time in replying to you at all. i mean come on. you ride in defending tancredo? a crazy fuckin moron? ja! you invalidated your own words just on that affiliation alone. but whatever. people like to talk about things alot, i'll let 'em.

Pjgoober - I think most of the people who read and post here regularly think that trusting or not trusting someone solely based on the color of their skin or ethnic identity is a dangerous proposition.

It doesn't seem like you'd completely disagree with that statement, except for the fact that Tancredo is doing just that and you're supporting him.

pjg: "Since you were indeed accused of being "pro-illegal alien",

Which is an accusation made without evidentiary support. This is a perfect example of why you need to ask more questions and make fewer presumptions.

pjg: "here is a more civil elaborating question for you and everyone else. Assume we pass comprehensive reform, with earned legalization for the undocumented as well as expand legal immigration by a finite amount (say 33%-50%). If new undocumented immigrants show up afterwards, is it ok with you guys to deport them, even if they have put down deep roots including US born children?"

That depends. If you're going to start messing around with jus soli and jus sanguinis, are you prepared for the possible legal consequences deriving therefrom? And do you understand what sort of legal consequences might arise, or do you need to be educated on the matter?

pjg: "Arab slave trade (blacks and europeans, that's where the word slav comes from)."

Maaaaaan, you're clueless. Don't you even look things up before you post them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slav

I happen to *be* a Slav, and I also happen to know that you're wrong. Get it together, kid.

pjg: "White people are not unique in either their desire for nor actual undertaking of inter-ethnic violence and oppression."

And, of course, no one here said that they were. You might be better served by responding to the things that people actually say, as opposed to responding to the things that you might wish they had said.

pjg: "Also, note this poll that came out a day or two ago: "US minorities don't trust each other"
Excerpt: "Sixty-one percent of Hispanics, 54 percent of Asians and 47 percent of African-Americans said they would rather do business with whites than members of the other two groups."

Unless you're able to present me with the complete survey methodology and complete results, as well as a margin of error of +/-3%, I reject this poll as well as the claimed results. I'm not in the habit of accepting polls and surveys when I can't have a detailed look under the hood. That is, you see, part and parcel of rebuttal.

pjg: "I'll continue addressing the things you said in a bit, but for now feel free to rebut the above."

Done. Next?

Oh, BTW -- you conveniently failed to respond to the multitude of questions I asked you earlier. Your prompt and polite responses to same will earn prompt and polite responses from me to *your* queries. However, truth be told, I don't hold out a lot of hope for politeness from you.

pjg: "That's what I get for offering Tomas an olive branch - absolutely nothing."

I am not obliged to reply to you on your schedule, you arrogant little person. I'll reply to you on *my* schedule, when I am good and ready to do so, and if you don't like it, that's just too bad for you.

Grow up, boy.

pjg: "No one can hate quite like a self-righteous white liberal."

Firstly, I don't *hate* you or anyone else. I do think you're clueless and misinformed, and I also think that you don't have a great deal of knowledge of your own, but none of that means that I *hate* you. Pity might be more accurate, though.

Secondly, if you're going to apply adjectives to me, be sure not to leave out gun-owning, disabled veteran and former Republican in your list.

After all, we wouldn't want you to be inaccurate, now would we?

very nice form, Tomás. very satisfying read. good efficiency of movement, with debilitating, swift strikes in crucial zones.

Nezua --

It's quite remarkable how that fellow freely throws around unsupported claims, accusations and pejorative names, and then bristles with hostility when his jackasstic behavior is met in kind. Some people's public behavior isn't fit for the barnyard, let alone polite discussion.

You're certainly well-shed of him, sir.

"jackasstic" for new adjective of the year!!!! do you HEAR those sirens going off? wow. it's like someone hit the slot machine.

well, yeah, he was killing my buzz.

Aw, t'weren't nothin.'

Hey, his IP address just woke up. I think something stirs in Riverside. I wonder if he's bouncing off your ban list yet? :)