Native American protests at an Arizona Illegal Immigration Rally

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Pushing a toddler in a stroller, a rightfully irritated self-identified Native American began yelling at the group, saying: “Y’all f*cking illegal. You’re all illegal. You’re all illegal! We didn’t invite none of you here!” Some of the audio may not be work safe, so be warned.

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That's just another variation of the same idea though, so no. The Native American wasn't unethical as you claim because he's using a simply using a baby stroller because he was complaining about the illegal immigration protestors.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

He wasn't complaining about protesters. He said that he is only legal and only people of his race can "invite" somebody here. "You’re all illegal! We didn’t invite none of you here!". "We" means people of his race.

If something looks like strawberry jam, smells like strawberry jam, and tastes like strawberry jam then this is probably strawberry jam. This man wears western clothes, speaks European language and lives in western city with all it goods like medicine for his kid -- and he thinks that all people that created this robbed him. He is a western man with crisis of his identity. He may do two things to fix it and live in accordance with his ideology: either he accept western people together with their civilization and goods, if he use them, or he deny their civilization if he considers them illegal intruders, with all their gadgets and firewater:

The protestors mostly ignored the man though some responded by informing him that they too were of Native American descent, and yet others simply suggested he'd had too much to drink. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/native-american-man-immigration-protesters_n_2630577.html)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah he was protesting the protestors. And your list of what he can do is silly, as though they're the only legitimate things he can do. Bullshit. "Some responded they were Native American." *One* person said that, and off camera. How do we know it's true? And if it's true? So what? And those suggested he had too much to drink? Really? How would they know other than he was yelling at them? Did they do an breath analyzer alcohol test on the spot?

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

he was protesting the protestors

Yes, he was protesting the protestors but with what idea? Protesters were against illegal immigrants. Therefore those who is against protesters should support illegal immigration. But this guy didn't say "everybody welcome", right? He said "We didn’t invite none of you".

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, an example of you being pedantic, and not understanding the broader point he was making.

You can't parse the nuance of the statement unfortunately.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

A likely drunk person who starts his speech with "Y’all f*cking..." doesn't look like a person whose words contain any additional sense and nuances. That's just primitive aggression.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Completely speculative and not based on any collaborative evidence.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

And your opinion that the message "Y’all f*cking illegal... We didn’t invite none of you here!" contains "broader point" and "nuances" is based on which evidence?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Protesters were against illegal immigrants

Yeah, see, he doesn't agree that they are any less "illegal". Try to get your head around that. No one is illegal.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

No one is illegal.

Any law says so or you just think so?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I just think so. And please explain the "legality" of raping, killing, pillaging and spreading disease, destroying crops, and so forth to displace an indigenous population.

If you cannot justify it, then you are taking baby steps to seeing the irony the native american was pointing out.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

And please explain the "legality" of raping, killing, pillaging and spreading disease, destroying crops, and so forth to displace an indigenous population.

That were crimes in contemporary understanding. That happened. So what to do now? Select people of particular race and proclaim them guilty?

I don't understand your logic. The land was stolen from Native Americans, Europeans populated it, making Native Americans a small minority. So if it was a crime you should support the idea of returning the land to it owners. Instead, you support the idea of further settlement of the land without any limit. This process will change the status of Indians from "small minority" to "microscopic minority". Will this be fair to indigenous population?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Well, forcefully taking land to prove that forcefully taking land is wrong has no small irony either.

But that is basically the Native American dude's point. The protesters should learn to fucking share.

[mzflux.livejournal.com]

some responded by informing him that they too were of Native American descent

Their great great great great great grandmother was a Cherokee princess, right? And? What have they learned from that? That being Native American is hip but being Mexican (which is fucking Native American after all) is not hip?

Troll today, gone tomorrow.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

Their great great great great great grandmother was a Cherokee princess, right? And? What have they learned from that?

They probably learned that it is senseless to live in contemporary world with tribal ideology.

[mzflux.livejournal.com]

And by tribal ideology you mean what exactly?

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

That's ideology of besieged fortress when everybody behind the wall is enemy (since tribes are normally at enmity fighting for resources).

http://www.zurinstitute.com/enmity.html#definition

"The 1984 edition of Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary defines "enemy" simply as a "hostile force or power," "a member or unit of such a force," or "something having destructive effect"... Psychologists have long been aware that "hostile forces" and "destructive effect" are not always clear objective realities but are inextricably linked to the complex relationships between the participants in a conflict. Considering the role of perception, "enemy" can be defined as a person or a group of persons perceived to represent a threat to or to be hostile towards the perceiver."

[mzflux.livejournal.com]

1984 edition, huh? Ever heard of the term Neo-tribalism?

Needless to say, that's the whole point. Those protesters haven't learned anything. And the Native calling them out on their shit was putting up a mirror for them with his satirical take on their demonstration. You don't actually think he really believes all non-native peoples are illegals and wants them out of his country, right?

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

Ever heard of the term Neo-tribalism?

Neotribalism or modern tribalism is the ideology that human beings have evolved to live in tribal society, as opposed to mass society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotribalism)

This guy definitely opposes the neotribalism de-facto: he uses many products of mass society.

Those protesters haven't learned anything.

What they should learn? They want to live in a society governed by law.

You don't actually think he really believes all non-native peoples are illegals and wants them out of his country, right?

We don't know what he really believes in. We can not read his thoughts. So we must accept the idea that what he thinks is what he says. And he said: "Y’all f*cking illegal. You’re all illegal. You’re all illegal! We didn’t invite none of you here!" If somebody says "You are all illegal" then I don't have reasons to think that he don't "really believes all non-native peoples are illegals". "All" means all, everybody. If you tell me "I didn't invite you here" I will understand that you want me to leave. And if a person uses filthy language it means that he doesn't try to present complicated and balanced philosophy.

[mzflux.livejournal.com]

Last paragraph made me realize the deep state of denial you're currently in. That Native guy clearly hates all non-natives because that's what he said, without any sense of irony. And Stephen Colbert is a Republican.

Please, cue the filthy language.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> What they should learn? They want to live in a society governed by law

Maybe. But I suspect they really want to live in a society governed by PRIVILEGE. And furthermore, they want to be able to entrench their privilege to the point of calling it law, as a way to insulate themselves from their obvious selfishness.

[ygam.livejournal.com]

I came across this thread while searching for comments by another blogger.

What do you think the protesters should have learned? That the government they elected should not be in the business of deciding who should be allowed to come to their country (and use its social services, hospitals, schools, and compete with the native-born for unskilled work)? That the laws the government has passed should not be enforced? As I understand it, what you are saying is that there is something significant the protesters don't see, and if they listened thoughtfully to the counter-protester, they would see it. So what is it?

Native Americans are a small minority in the United States, but in Mexico the majority of the population are Hispanicized Native Americans. And Mexico treats illegal immigrants from Guatemala and Honduras much more harshly than the United States treats illegal immigrants from Mexico (proof (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/06/04/stepping-over-the-line.html)).

[mzflux.livejournal.com]

I got a good laugh at your "proof" that Mexicans are also a bunch of ethnocentric assholes -- a singular Newsweek article from 2006.

As for Native Americans being a "small minority in the United States", my father's grandmother was 100% Tlingit. I am a part of that "small minority". My mother is 100% Mexican with indigenous roots.

So please tell me more about my people with more sweeping generalizations based on ignorant, outdated, and poorly researched articles from the Bush era that happily cite board members of the Center for Immigration Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center) like George Grayson.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

What do you think the protesters should have learned?

The hypocrisy of their protest. And to have compassion for current immigrants.


I understand it, what you are saying is that there is something significant the protesters don't see, and if they listened thoughtfully to the counter-protester, they would see it. So what is it?

That they should listen to their great great grandparents ghosts.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

He wasn't complaining about protesters.

Yes he was. He was pointing out the irony of relatively recent immigrants protesting current immigrants.

This is your error.