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

[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.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

That Native guy clearly hates all non-natives because that's what he said, without any sense of irony.

Irony...is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or situation in which there is an incongruity between the literal and the implied meaning. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)

What make you think that a person saying "Y’all f*cking illegal. You’re all illegal. You’re all illegal! We didn’t invite none of you here!" is ironic and use allegories? His speech is not enough complicated to find additional sense in it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

What make you think that a person saying "Y’all f*cking illegal. You’re all illegal. You’re all illegal! We didn’t invite none of you here!" is ironic and use allegories? His speech is not enough complicated to find additional sense in it.
Reply

He was enraged by the hypocrisy of someone who's lineage makes themselves a recent immigrant protesting the current immigrants. The irony of those who generations ago killed his people and stole land by force now protesting those who just want to live together in peace.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

recent immigrant protesting the current immigrants

Please don't mix shoppers with shoplifters. All current immigrants are welcome if they enter legally. All people with tickets are welcome in the theater. The demonstration was against those who enter theater without a ticket.

those who generations ago killed his people

Relationships between person A and person B in year 1700 can not be transferred to persons C and D living in year 2000, even if C is direct descendant of A and D is descendant of B. But they are not even direct descendants, they are just belong to same race. We can not make people of some race responsible today for something in the past, it's pure racism. Majority of white Americans have German roots, and Germany didn't have colonies in America.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The demonstration was against those who enter theater without a ticket.

No shit? You are Sherlock Holmes! And the native american was pointing out that the europeans who took the land from his ancestors didn't have any ticket to enter the theater. They raped and killed. Maybe that is what the current immigrants should do?

Relationships between person A and person B in year 1700 can not be transferred to persons C and D living in year 2000,

Borders drawn in 1700 sure still apply....

[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.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

What privileges do they have? Since Arizona has much bigger problems with illegal immigration than northern states, federals making their decisions about providing education and medicine for illegal emigrants set a heavier burden for Arizona residents then for their states. Therefore those Arizona protesters don't have privileges, they have obligations.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> What privileges do they have?

Many, of specific poetic irony value in the exchange described in the OP is their privilege to own property which was, in the final analysis, stolen from the ethnic and cultural ancestors of one of the parties to that exchange.

> Since Arizona has much bigger problems with illegal immigration than northern states, federals making
> their decisions about providing education and medicine for illegal emigrants set a heavier burden for Arizona
> residents then for their states.

As a Florida resident, I am very aware of the real issues with immigration. And I am also very aware of the un-real issues that have to do with political posturing.

The above statements I quote from you follow the pretty straight forward conservative framing that purposefully neglects large parts of the equation. There is the primary focus of immigrants as a "burden" as if they cross the border, sit on their ass, and start sucking down welfare checks, pausing only long enough to put their kids into state sponsored babysitting factories.

Ignored is the fact that Immigrants do work, as well as consume products they must pay for with their work. Ignored is the fact that availing themselves of education will increase the degree to which their children are economic positives rather than negatives. The question of to what degree they are a 'burden' as opposed to an asset would depend on the positive versus negative effects of their economic contribution, and that equation has little to do with their legality or illegality. The "illegal immigrants as economic burden" construction is just another of those pre-packaged talking points designed to rationalize away people's natural senses of empathy and fairness, so as to lubricate legislation and policies that enhance privilege.

[morgulis.livejournal.com]

their privilege to own property which was, in the final analysis, stolen from the ethnic and cultural ancestors of one of the parties

The guy on video has no stolen property rights. Ancestors privileges and losses are not transferable.

There is the primary focus of immigrants as a "burden" as if they cross the border, sit on their ass, and start sucking down welfare checks

It is not depend on immigrants, it depend on state. In social state, yes, illegal immigrants consume from public funds more than they send to public funds:

http://www.cis.org/High-Cost-of-Cheap-Labor#taxrevenue

Ignored is the fact that Immigrants do work

If a person earns 30K and his family consumes 40K in education and medicine it's a burden, not profit for a society.

The "illegal immigrants as economic burden" construction is just another of those pre-packaged talking points

It is simple: if illegal immigration is a profit for a country then different countries would compete for illegal immigrants. But they don't.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Back when the ancestors of the protesters were illegal immigrants, they just stole the land from the native americans by violence, rape, and murder. And now they complain about others who just want to exist in peace?

[ygam.livejournal.com]

their privilege to own property which was, in the final analysis, stolen from the ethnic and cultural ancestors of one of the parties to that exchange.

Are you sure that the ethnic and cultural ancestors of the counter-protester have lived in the area since the beginning of human settlement in the Americas, or have they perhaps displaced earlier inhabitants ("stealing their property")?

Navajo and several Apache languages belong to the Na-Dene language family. The majority of languages of this language family are (or were in recent history) spoken in Alaska, Yukon and thereabouts. The ancestors of the Navajo have migrated to the Southwest around 600 years ago. If the counter-protester is a Navajo, and the protesters' ancestors have lived in Arizona for 100 years, then the counter-protester's ancestors have been in the Southwest longer, but not incredibly many times longer.

(About 12 years ago I went to an Internet forum where one of the participants was an American linguist specializing in Southern Athabascan languages; his account name was the Navajo word for "warrior"; he was one of the very few whites who spoke Jicarilla Apache)

[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.

[ygam.livejournal.com]

The Czech writer Karel Čapek (1890-1938) once wrote a satirical essay, "Twelve figures of pen fight, or a handbook of literary polemic." One of the figures is called Imago; it consists of replacing the position of one's opponent with a pathetic caricature. I never intended to prove that "Mexicans are also a bunch of ethnocentric assholes." Please don't distort my words. What I said was that Mexico also has illegal immigrants from poorer countries such as Guatemala and Honduras, and that Mexico treats them more harshly than the United States treats illegal immigrants from Mexico. I cited the Newsweek article as a source. If you think that I am wrong, and the Newsweek article is not an authoritative enough source, please share your reasons for believing that Mexico doesn't have illegal immigrants from poorer countries, or that Mexico doesn't treat them more harshly than the United States treats illegal immigrants from Mexico.

I stand by my words: Native Americans are a small minority (1-2% of the population) in the United States. The fact that you are 1/8 Native North American in no way refutes my words. By the way of analogy: my name is Ilya. I am a U.S. citizen, having naturalized in 1995. The fact that I am named Ilya in no way refutes the fact that the percentage of U.S. population named Ilya is tiny, probably well under 0.01%. My point was that even though Mexico's indigenous population is much greater percentage-wise than the U.S., and the majority of Mexicans are of partly indigenous descent, Mexico does not have free immigration from poorer countries.

You haven't answered my question. Upthread you wrote, "Those protesters haven't learned anything." What do you think they should have learned? What should have they realized by watching the counter-protester that they don't already know? Please answer.

[mzflux.livejournal.com]

Thank chron_job. (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/3539992.html?thread=80837656#t80837656)

[ygam.livejournal.com]

Since you referred to chron_job's comment approvingly, it is my understanding that you believe that a country not founded on unjust privilege is a country with open borders, like the ones the United States had for much of the 19th century, before the frontier closed, except intercontinental travel is now much easier. So in your ideal world, if a million Bangladeshis or Somalis or Malawians decided that they wanted to move to the United States, there should be no obstacles barring them from doing so, just like now there are no obstacles barring a New Yorker from moving to New Jersey. Am I right? I don't want to argue against a caricature of my opponent's position, which is why I want to double check it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I stand by my words: Native Americans are a small minority (1-2% of the population) in the United States.

Technically correct, though they used to be the majority when the protesters great great great grandfathers came here and stole their land by murder, rape, and pestilence.

That's the irony the native american guy is pointing out. Those who not so many generations back stole land by force protesting people who just want to live in peace.

[ygam.livejournal.com]

The population of Great Britain and France has increased about 1 1/2 times in the last 150 years; that of the United States has increased about 10 times. Some of it was no doubt due to higher fertility of Americans compared to the French and the Britons, especially before the frontier closed, and farming families were large. Most of it, no doubt, was due to immigration. I cannot find any numbers on the Internet, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that the ancestors of most Americans alive 150 years ago were not resident in the United States. Mexican Americans are about 10% of the U.S. population; there were very few of them in 1863. Italian Americans are about 5%; same here. American Jews are about 2%; same here. Polish Americans are about 3%; same here. Immigration from Germany in the 2nd half of the 19th century was huge. 12 million people came through Ellis Island alone, and they had children, and their children had children. Therefore, if "stole their land" you mean "won the Mexican-American War", then it weren't ancestors of most modern-day Americans; it was other people in the country to which the ancestors of most modern-day Americans later immigrated.

[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.

[ygam.livejournal.com]

Things that were once legal can become illegal, and vice versa. Selling beer was illegal in the United States in the 1920s; since 1933 it has been legal. Selling slaves, on the other hand, was legal in the 1850s; now it is illegal. The laws that prohibit some activities and lift the prohibitions on others are passed by legislators who are elected by voters. Immigration policy of the United States was very lax in the early 1900s (except for the Chinese, if memory serves me right); it is much stricter now. There is no overriding legal principle that says that it should be lax forever. Or is there? If the great-great-grandparents of the protesters came to the States through Ellis Island, this doesn't force their descendants to keep an Ellis Island open forever, does it? The world was very different 100 years ago, and as the world changed, so has the U.S. immigration policy.

Now, if you believe that legislators elected by voters have no right to pass laws because they are illegitimate, and the only legitimate form of government is a dictatorship of the Communist Party or a Khalifate, this is a different conversation altogether.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

No one is illegal.

The protesters are protesting people who want to live alongside them peacefully. They call them illegal because they are from another country. The protesters themselves are descendants of people who came here from another country and stole the land via rape pestilence and murder. That is the irony the native american dude was pointing out.

I trust that is clear?

[ygam.livejournal.com]

No one is illegal.

Do you own a house or a condo? If I sneak into your house, take your keys and duplicate them, and then walk into your bedroom and start living there, using your kitchen and electricity without paying for it, I will not be an illegal person, but I will be doing illegal actions. You will probably call the police on me, won't you? You want to control, who lives in your house, don't you? Anyone who lives in your house against your will does so illegally. If you don't own your own house, you must know somebody who does; please put yourself in their shoes. Likewise, a country wants to control, who lives inside its borders, and has immigration laws that say so. Anyone who lives in the country while breaking these laws does so illegally. Is this so hard to understand? Now, it is possible that these laws are stupid and should be changed. In fact, they are being changed. An LJ friend of mine is an immigration lawyer from Boston, and today she posted Obama's proposal for immigration law reform. Yet as long as the laws remain on books, anyone who breaks them is doing illegal things.

With few exceptions (Estonia, perhaps?), there is no country on Earth the ancestors of the population of which didn't come from another country and steal the land via rape and murder. In historic times, England was conquered by the Anglo-Saxons and later by the Normans; France by the Franks; Eastern Germany was Slavic-speaking until about 1000 CE; the Hungarians came from beyond the Urals and invaded Hungary in the 9th century. In Russophone LJ some 7 years ago I once saw a heated argument about who Kosovo should belong to, the Albanians or the Serbs, and said that all humanity came out of Africa some 60,000 years ago. Yet I cannot think of a country that has an open borders policy because of its citizens' guilt for their murderous ancestors.