site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   18417 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 29, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ilhan Omar speaks to her own people, in her own language, and she is getting blasted for it.

The video itself, from what I think is the most original source I could find.

The headlines I've collected:

Ilhan Omar Deportation Calls Grow From Republicans

'Squad' member grilled for remarks about allegiance: 'Somalians first, Muslims second'

Rep. Ilhan Omar Faces Backlash on Social Media Following Viral Speech on Somalia

From her own, preferred, translation:

We Somalis are people who love each other. It is possible that some of us are rough with each other, but when the going gets tough, we are people who have each other’s backs. We are sisters and brothers, supporting each other, people who know they are Somalis and Muslims, coming to each other’s aid and aiding their brothers and sisters.

And the other day, when we heard that some Somalis, or those who say they are Somalis, entered an MoU with Ethiopia, many people called me and said, “Ilhan, you should talk to the US government; what is the US government going to do about this?”

My response was: the US government will do what we ask it to do. We should have this confidence in ourselves as Somalis. We live in this country. We are taxpayers in this country. This country is one where one of your daughters sits in Congress. While I am in Congress, no one will take Somalia’s sea. The United States will not back others to rob us. So, do not lose sleep over that, O Minnesotans. The lady you sent to Congress is on this, and she is as cognizant of this interest as you are.

I would like to tell President Hassan Sheikh that we are impressed with the great work you have done. You have made it known to those living in Somalia and other places that, in spite of the many challenges we face as Somalis, we are nonetheless competent people. People who believe in their country and will not allow it to be endangered.

Thus, I want to congratulate the Somalis in Minnesota and everywhere on how united you are. How you all stood by our president, because he needs our solidarity. Somalia belongs to all Somalis. Somalia is one. We are brothers and sisters, and our land will not be balkanized. Our lands were taken from us before, and God willing, we may one day seek them, but what we have now will not be balkanized.

I thank you all for how you always welcome me and honor me; may the Lord honor you. Peace and blessings of God be with you.

Nothing here is news to me. I also think Omar should be expelled from Congress and deported, but that's because she's committed immigration fraud to bring her brother into the US by posing as his wife. It's always been obvious to me that she's simply not American, will never be American, and can never be American. She's Somali, and here, in her native tongue, talking to her coethnics, she admits as much. Look at her preferred translation again, and consider who she lumps herself with.

We Somalis are people who love each other.

We are sisters and brothers, supporting each other, people who know they are Somalis and Muslims, coming to each other’s aid and aiding their brothers and sisters.

This is the part that has been translated into Somalis first, Muslims second, and Americans not at all (emphasis mine). She does, eventually, say Minnesotans:

So, do not lose sleep over that, O Minnesotans. The lady you sent to Congress is on this, and she is as cognizant of this interest as you are.

The video subtitles do not translate Minnesota, but it's clearly recognizable (sounds like "rare minnesoto" at ~1:38).

You have made it known to those living in Somalia and other places that, in spite of the many challenges we face as Somalis, we are nonetheless competent people.

Somalia belongs to all Somalis. Somalia is one. We are brothers and sisters, and our land will not be balkanized. Our lands were taken from us before, and God willing, we may one day seek them, but what we have now will not be balkanized.

The "brothers and sisters" refers to Somali muslims, not the Scandinavian or German ethnics who have been in Minnesota for generations, those who are being replaced by Omar and her ilk. Not the yankees who moved west from New York and Pennsylvania. Solidarity is for blacks and muslims, not whites, not Americans.

I'm not trying to hide my biases here. I've long thought it obvious that this woman was a foreign agent, representing foreigners in the US congress at the expense of Americans. That offends me deeply. I can't even call her disloyal, because she's very clearly loyal to who she considers her own. I'm glad more people are noticing, and I hope that she is punished for her misdeeds eventually. I simply wish I could say, America for the Americans, our lands will not be taken from us, but I unfortunately that sentiment is only available for foreigners.

Hopefully Tlaib is next.

If the US military stayed within its own borders except when genuinely attacked in an unprovoked way, I would be more willing to grant that US nativists have a worthy moral argument. But as long as the US constantly attempts to exert its will on the world using force, I see no moral argument for why people from the rest of the world should refrain from trying to influence US politics for the benefit of their own countries or ethnic groups or why they should refrain from moving to the US and enjoying the benefits of living there while having absolutely no loyalty to it and instead just exploiting it for their own purposes.

To be fair, many US nativists are actually in favor of a less interventionist US foreign policy.

Wanting influence is one thing, living there is another. And even in that only some kind of influence. I am not an American for example and I don't see anything immoral in trying to influence American foreign poilicy against doing evil imperialist shit (and laudible for non Americans to prioritise opposing evil policy at their expense) but it destroys all boundaries and nuance to see all kinds of behavior as acceptable. I don't see why USA owes Somalians to let them go there and act as foreigners.

America owes itself to not let foreigners exploit its people. And it is immoral in general to support said exploitation, not a case of you having a point about nativists not having a sound moral reasoning.

Another thing to consider is the enormous amount of western help that goes to African countries.

And also that what you are doing here is being quite convenient for those who both like to invade the world and invite the world. Why not oppose both? I have noticed many of the liberals of this world and including in this forum have failed to be louder in opposing the neocons crowd. In a manner that is disappointing for someone who experienced them opposing the Iraq war as I also did at the time.

Anyway, it is interesting that you are an American who finds nothing immoral about non Americans exploiting Americans. Someone might even describe this attitude as a treasonous attitude and it won't be an uncharitable exaggeration. In actuality those who are uncharitable and booing as their outgroup, those who have standards and try to enforce them, would be incentivizing immorality in favor of exploitation.

Countries ideally should neither be invading the world, not letting themselves be exploited by the world. Something has gotten seriously wrong with the kind of people running things if you have reached that place. Combining pathological altruism with destructive imperialism is like having the worst of both worlds. Someone is winning in this process and it includes various lobbies, war manufacturers, the contractors, the state department.

I am not an American by birth, only by residence. I feel almost no loyalty whatsoever to America and am almost entirely happy to exploit it for my own benefit without feeling any sense of duty to it in return. I feel only slightly more loyalty to my ethnic group than I do to Americans (while recognizing that this is an irrational emotional urge), and none whatsoever to the government that currently rules my birth country. I do like Americans on average and feel a good bit of loyalty to certain specific ones who I am friends with but of course, I feel no loyalty whatsoever to the US government or to any abstract notions of "America".

I myself am not advocating for the moralistic argument and am quite content with leaving things at the selfish argument level, I'm just pointing out that US nativists could only be consistent by either grasping the selfish argument and abandoning moral ones or by advocating for non-interventionism.

In general, I simply do not respect borders, rules, or abstract notions of distinctions between nations or ethnic groups on any sort of ideological level. I am pragmatic - in practice, I respect the realities of such distinctions insofar as that is necessary to protect myself from violence, but I do not value borders, rules, or national distinctions in any ideological sense. When I cross a country's border, I have no sense at all that I am crossing some sort of line on a map that requires me to change anything about myself - I simply feel that I am moving from one place on the surface of this big rock, which is dominated by people who follow certain patterns of behavior, to another place, which is dominated by people who follow different patterns of behavior.

At the same time, I will of course not be so stupid as to not avail myself of other people's genuine ideological beliefs in things like borders and nations to benefit myself if it ever proves necessary. For example, I am perfectly happy to avail myself of the benefits of America's relatively strong rule of law while at the same time feeling almost no obligation whatsoever to America as a geographical, ethnic, or legal entity.

And I do not consider myself immoral for this. I do care deeply about certain Americans - to be precise, my friends and those I view as allies. And in that, I am very much American. How much does the average Democrat care about Republicans? How much does the average Republican care about Democrats? Most Americans, it seems to me, at least the ones who care a lot about politics, which includes most people on this site, in reality operate just the same as I do. Any US-dwelling right-wing Motte poster who feels more affinity to some foreign writer who agrees politically with him than he does to some SJW leftist who was born and bred in the US is just the same as I am.

This is the most incredible thing I've ever read. I'm kind of amazed by it, honestly. Amazed and impressed.

I'm sorry because this really isn't the place to make assertions without evidence, but I don't believe you. I think you are a liar, and if people were this coldly utilitarian about their community, let alone their country, civilization might be at genuine risk of breaking down and the hardcore red-tribers who believe civilization is constantly inches from the precipice are not full of hyperbole and hot air.

To clarify, it's not the fact that you see the benefit in doing as you claim that impresses me so. It's the fact that you think not doing so is rational and pragmatic. The borders, rules, abstract nations of distinctions between nations and ethnic groups on any sort of ideological level that you claim to not respect are the very same rules that draw lines between you and others.

The house metaphor is overused, tired, but still apt. Do you respect fences, doors, barriers? Do you not understand, as a self-avowed rational actor, that if you show that living in this manner is possible for you, then others will realize the same thing and apply the same lack of respect to your fences, doors, and barriers?

And again, as a self-avowed rational actor, you are willing to say this out loud? Are you insane? In your own words, while you understand the benefits of America's relatively strong rule of law, you feel no obligation whatsoever to America as a legal entity? You realize that what you are claiming is that that you like it when the laws govern others to your benefit but don't intend on following the same laws. Leaving all questions of morality aside, I struggle to believe you genuinely think this is a position with any pragmatic value at all.

So I don't believe you. I do not believe you are a pragmatic or rational actor, I believe you are reveling in taking advantage of a system designed to benefit you while caring nothing for its maintenance, under the belief that this is rational and logical behavior. Do so at your own peril, there's enough people who do the same already, but crowing about it makes other people who maintain the system you benefit from and contribute nothing to feel like maintaining the system less every day.

Again, I am making assertions without evidence, but I am willing to make a guess that you do not have offspring. If I am wrong and you are not a liar, and you genuinely hold this opinion, I wonder if you have any goodwill for those who carry your genes into the world and have to live in the countries - yes, countries! - of the future.

To wit - I never thought I'd see the day where ignoring the phrase "don't shit where you eat" is treated as a rational belief.

You know, if I wanted to write an Ayn Rand-style novel about the evils of immigration, I could copy this and paste it almost verbatim into the mouth of one of the villains. I don’t say this out of any personal animus, but keeping out people with your selfish, exploitative, disloyal attitude is the single largest reason I want heavy restrictions on immigration. Whatever economic benefit you bring to the United States, I firmly believe the country would be better off forgoing it if it meant we would have fewer people like you. Call my attitude irrational, nativistic, whatever—when the chips are down, I and millions of Americans will make sacrifices for our communities and our country, while it’s pretty clear you’ll skip out to somewhere better the first chance you get.

How much does the average Democrat care about Republicans? How much does the average Republican care about Democrats?

I think this is one place where the Internet has severely soured the discourse. I strongly suspect that the median answer in both cases is that they care more than you expect, and that the loud cases you see online aren't truly representative (although I worry they are becoming moreso).

There exists genuine disagreement about how best to care about, say, single-parent families ("encourage marriage"/"throw money at them") with both sides accusing the other of being counterproductive, but as a fairly moderate voter, I don't generally doubt the intent on either side. There are some obvious cases of motivated reasoning -- although it's often hard to tell when one's reasoning is so-motivated. I have friends across the political spectrum, and while the level of empathy I see for others varies, none of them seem to operate purely selfishly (although such people probably exist outside of my set of friends).

I love America. I love George Washington. I love Thomas Jefferson. I love Betsy Ross. I love our stupid national anthem with notes that most people can't reach. I love the Constitution, and the Liberty Bell, and our National Parks. I love the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. I love our aircraft carriers and our war planes. I love the Grand Canyon and the Bald Eagle. I love supermarkets and farmer's markets. I love our long and fraught journey to secure each citizen the greatest freedoms enjoyed by man on Earth.

I love them in the same way I love my parents, who I didn't choose and aren't necessarily the best, but they raised me as best as they were able. To say that one country is the same as another to me would be to say that one random couple is the same as my parents to me.

Is this something only people raised in America feel, or does anyone else feel that way about their homeland?

I would assume both your parents and your country (in general) are too far above the minimum acceptable level of "good" for you to consider not loving them.

I value the cultural connection to my people, and begrudgingly grant that having our own state is better for our culture and our people than not having one, much like having abusive parents is still often better than an orphanage. That does not mean I feel obliged to grant any warm feelings to my country as a political entity. Lately especially, it is far too focused on supporting its expansion at the expense of its people.

I feel that way about Britain. I am... deeply annoyed by many of the things that large chunks of it have got up to lately, and the apparent suicidal instinct of its leaders, but it's my home. It has a great and noble history, rich traditions, beautiful landscapes, etc. etc. I just wish one of those traditions wasn't stamping on all the others.

I feel...differently about Germany.

I'd certainly describe myself as a patriot. A nationalist even. But it's the culture, the language, the actual physical country, the people and their ways, and the everyday architecture that I love. Not the institutions, the state, the monuments and symbols. But that may have an obvious historical explanations. For the Americans, those things were always theirs - a democracy from the get-go, by the people and for the people. Tacky as their symbols might be, they are theirs. But for us Germans, the state was never truly a democracy; the most we ever managed was to be handed whatever form of democracy our betters thought suitable for us, by the state and against the people. We accepted it, of course, having always been a people of loyal subjects. We are now loyal subjects of our democratic constitutional order, but it's by social convention and pragmatism, and not in our hearts. As a people, we remain subjects, and our relationship to the state is little different to that our ancestors had to the Reich, or to their local princes. Those on high decide, and we obey. So what does that make the monuments, the symbols and the institutions? Those are the emanations of the ruling class, or the ruling gestalt entity anyways. They aren't truly ours. The local church, alright, that at least is or was relevant to people's lives. The ruins of a castle, picturesque and one can picnic there. But the statue of some Prussian Junker or King? Some neoclassicist monument to the Kaiserreich? A memorial to holocaust victims? The halls of government? None of that is of us and for us, but is of the state and against us. We are to obey in actions, but our hearts are irrelevant. Our constitution, our institutions, our relationship to the military, all that are artificial post-war creations installed to dictate specific behaviors to us. It's not from us. It's not for us. It's to make us behave.

At the most one could say that our tricolor flag, the black-red-and-gold, is by and for us. But in truth it was by a small subset of the population, ideologically charged and by no means organic. It's still our flag, we rally around it for identification and for sports, so I suppose we have taken to it.

Still, it's my country and my people and my language and my culture and my land, and all those are the best in the world. Obviously.

Is this something only people raised in America feel, or does anyone else feel that way about their homeland?

Definitely not unique, I feel this way about Poland and there were are/many people who described their feelings this way (even if they targeted say willows rather than supermarkets and so on).

Many people in history also had opportunity to prove it be their deeds.

Similar applies elsewhere. I see nothing whatsoever to indicate that it applies uniquely to USA.

or does anyone else feel that way about their homeland?

I'd feel that way if my homeland was as free, and its society as well-regulated, as the US is.

It is not.

The majority outside the West surely do. 89% of Pakistanis are prepared to fight for their country, vs Italy and Germany at 22%.

https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/39dqfw/would_you_be_willing_to_fight_for_your_country/

Considering Pakistan's track record, they're likely to lose. Yet they're still ready to try!

I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt; in 2021 we saw that a stunning 0% of Afghanis were willing to fight for "their country", which is nowhere near the 76% the survey says.

Eh, quite a few Afghans were willing to fight for their country. Against the remains of the forces the former occupying Americans had propped up, that is.

If you're defining "their country" that way then yeah, I guess you could say the number was actually about 3%. Maybe they were under-counting the Taliban; I don't think they even get cell reception out there (that isn't via a drone pretending to be a tower to launch missiles at devices that try to connect to it).

More comments

I imagine the confounder with Pakistan is that they're next door to people they really, really don't like. Italy and Germany, meanwhile, have never really had beef with each other since, what, the dawn of the 19th Century?

They, uh, were on opposite sides in WWI. And again towards the end of WWII. Germany didn’t exactly get a long leash during the Cold War, but I guess half of it was on Italy’s side.

I understand that Italy's motivation in WWI was more against the Austrians than the Prussians (irredentism over Trieste, IIRC?), though I did forget about the second war.

More comments

I am not an American by birth, only by residence. I feel almost no loyalty whatsoever to America and am almost entirely happy to exploit it for my own benefit without feeling any sense of duty to it in return.

Proving who you call nativists had a point when they have wanted to exclude people from coming there because they wouldn't have the same sense of loyalty as natives. Since the common good of a country requires people who act based on a sense of duty towards others.

And I do not consider myself immoral for this. I do care deeply about certain Americans - to be precise, my friends and those I view as allies. And in that, I am very much American.

A pro exploitation attitute that doesn't see one having a duty to his fellow people is inherently immoral. You don't have limitless duty or unconditional to how they treat you, to ones country, parents, children, but you do have duties.

You also have duties even to foreign people and countries. Saying that any exploitation is fine, does itself passes a blatantly immoral line.

You can be loyal to your country, even if you don't feel affinity for far leftists due to the fact they don't feel loyalty to their country.

Also, you can care about people in some ways for what you have in common, even if you disdain them in other ways.

It is easier for me to not really care about people I disagree with strongly here since you are anonymous foreigners, but I actually do value some people in my life that I have strong disagreements with on political issues.

It is still true though that there is an inherent issue with a certain type of ideologue whose ideology make them actively very hostile to their own nation by origin. But it is a case of themselves excluding themselves from their own ethnic community by their own hostility, rather than nativists in all contexts caring about abstract differences over ethnic affinity.

Ethnic bonds matter to many people in a way that they don't to you.

To be clear, I think the idea that people don't have a duty to their country is immoral also for "foreign" countries.

It is simply not true that everyone treats the way you do nations as irrelevant and illegitimate.

I do like Americans on average and feel a good bit of loyalty to certain specific ones who I am friends with but of course, I feel no loyalty whatsoever to the US government or to any abstract notions of "America".

The goverment is one thing, but the notion of X is its people. I would say that there is an inherent value to duty of doing things and also avoiding from doing (as in exploiting) people outside just one friends. And an individual who is part of an ethnic community benefits from this. It is friendship on a broader level.

A society made of people who feel a connection and a duty for each other is benefiting from them having said bonds and that is a good thing for them, no matter how irrational you find those feelings.

Now, I advocated that nationalism should respect other nations so we can have international peace so there are limits relating to ethnocentrism. Still ethnocentrism is a good thing, just one that shouldn't be limitless. The alternative to nations you represent is worse with the only thing to its supposed credit the idea that you find the ethnic bonds and the reciprocal duties as irrational.

Considering what is lost, it is a bad trade off.

I myself am not advocating for the moralistic argument and am quite content with leaving things at the selfish argument level, I'm just pointing out that US nativists could only be consistent by either grasping the selfish argument and abandoning moral ones or by advocating for non-interventionism.

Two wrongs don't make a right. So you should still have a problem with those supporting exploitation even if, which isn't the case, all the nativists supported immoral interventionism.

This is a false argument when not all groups have valid claims to being negatively affected by American interventionism.

Moreover, the enormous amount of western help towards African countries should matter.

I do think that someone who is an American nativist but does favor the USA screwing over non Americans abroad, is being selfish and morally hypocritcal. Although in a selfish manner their argument that nativism is in their own peoples interest has its validity.

It seems you have found this as an argument to use against nativists but aren't interested in the issue whether you are morally obligated to not just use it as a gotcha but ought to oppose the neocons and interventionists yourself.

And in that, I am very much American. How much does the average Democrat care about Republicans? How much does the average Republican care about Democrats?

Little, if asked in those specific terms. A lot, if not asked in those specific terms. If you ask Republican Richard what he thinks about Democrats, he might give you a pretty negative answer, but if you ask him whether he cares about his neighbor, Democrat Dave, he will frequently say that he cares a lot. Dave and Richard disagree about quite a few things, like gay marriage, and how much the rich should pay in taxes, and what the best way to handle medical funding is, but Dave and Richard both fly American flags, they both have pickups trucks, they cheer for the same football team, they've lived in the same community for decades, and they have a beer on the porch together on Friday nights.

Note that Richard and Dave above are two real people that I know, just renamed for alliteration. They're common and ordinary, particularly in rural areas. Adding Rhajiv and Juan that don't give a shit about the United States makes things worse for Rich and Dave in the long run, even if Rhajiv is a decent software developer and Juan will do construction cheaply.

Any US-dwelling right-wing Motte poster who feels more affinity to some foreign writer who agrees politically with him than he does to some SJW leftist who was born and bred in the US is just the same as I am.

Many of my neighbors are what I would call "shitlibs". They're also very nice people and fantastic neighbors. I feel much more affinity for them than some political fellow traveler thousands of leagues away.

We may be on the same page then, I think. As I pointed out, I also feel a great deal of affinity for my own American friends. More than I feel for some random political fellow traveler thousands of miles away. It's just that I don't feel any additional level of affinity for people just because they are American.

...I see no moral argument for why people from the rest of the world should refrain from trying to influence US politics for the benefit of their own countries or ethnic groups or why they should refrain from moving to the US and enjoying the benefits of living there while having absolutely no loyalty to it and instead just exploiting it for their own purposes.

It's not a moral argument. I'm not arguing that they're evil for doing this, I'm arguing that the United States should tell them to fuck off because it's not in American interests.

I have no argument with that. My own take on the matter is selfish and, while I may be selfishly opposed to the selfishness of competing groups, at least the selfish argument is honest.

The way I heard the story, a warlord in the somalian civil war attacked UN troops distributing aid – and so the US obligingly went in because they didn’t have anything else to do that day. But you reckon this was a machiavellian exploitation of the third world that now justifies a somalian revenge ?

To be fair, many US nativists are actually in favor of a less interventionist US foreign policy.

Yeah, and they say: 'I don't care if foreigners kill each other, even if we could prevent it easily'. Are you ready to stand by that statement and policy, or were you just using US interventionism as an excuse for foreigners to not be bound by any standard of decency?

I don't care if foreigners kill each other, even if we could prevent it easily

Can you? That was the Libyan operation in a nutshell. Qaddafi was this comic-book villain - Susan Rice announced that he was giving his troops viagra so they could rape more effectively: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/29/diplomat-gaddafi-troops-viagra-mass-rape

It would be so easy to topple him and save the civilians from being massacred and raped! We, the West, started an air campaign that monstered the Libyan Army. Qaddafi ended up with a bayonet in his ass. Then the country collapsed into a second civil war. Arms from now-unguarded Libyan army caches found their way to Syria. Russia and China were incensed that their acquiescence of UNSC 1973 developed a no-fly zone into a bombing campaign. Russia especially was very angry that the energy deal they'd negotiated with Qaddafi ended up going to French companies and decided they wouldn't accept the same thing happening in Syria. All this happened after Qaddafi denuclearized in 2003, sending a very clear signal to Iran and North Korea.

Seemingly simple actions have all kinds of complex, dangerous outcomes. We blew up Qaddafi, Libya is now split in two, Europe was destabilized by the refugee flow and international law took a major blow.

But you reckon this was a machiavellian exploitation of the third world that now justifies a somalian revenge ?

No, not necessarily revenge. However, the US government clearly feels itself largely free to intervene wherever it pleases to in the world and can get away with, so from a moral perspective (not that I necessarily care about the moral perspective) I don't see why foreigners should not feel themselves largely free to at the least move to the US and advance their own ethnic interests.

Why does the fact that the US has troops in places like, say, Germany, give someone from Somalia carte blanche to "exploit" the US?

The US has gone into Somalia before, maintains an active presence in the region, and periodically Carries out strikes in the country. It also doesn’t seem like the US compelling state interest in the region is anything beyond ‘more stable than it currently is and not ruled by pirates or terrorists’; to the U.S.A. it doesn’t matter which of several third world shitholes rules that particular patch of desert, as long as whoever does doesn’t allow Al-Qaeda or a pirate fleet to launch attacks from it. So it’s perfectly reasonable for Omar to think the US should back Somalia up and Somalis in America should get a say in the matter. Not that I think there should be Somalis in America, but you’ve got to deal the hand you’re dealt.

You never watched Black Hawk Down?

Also conducted strikes a little over a decade after that on Al-Shabaab, supported Ethiopia in the War in Somalia, and Kenya during Operation Linda Nchi. Trump pulled troops out of Somalia, though they continued airstrikes from Kenya and Djibouti. Biden has sent troops back in (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/us/politics/biden-military-somalia.html) and that's just the military stuff and not the economic warfare.

The U.S. has a (small, I think) naval base in neighboring Djibouti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Lemonnier.

I am not a fan of Ilhan Omar. I'd even go so far as to agree with you if you speculated that she probably feels more loyalty to Somalia than the US and does not, in her heart of hearts, really feel an allegiance to the Constitution. But that would be speculation; neither of us really knows.

That said, this is appears to be an attempt by her enemies to willfully read the worst possible interpretation/translation into her words. Even if "Somalian first, Muslim second" really is an accurate translation of her words, that isn't the "gotcha" admission that she doesn't consider herself American or loyal to America that it's being represented as. I am sure I've heard similar statements of ethnic solidarity from other politicians.

One would at least think this debunks the idea that she’s a radical Islamist; a radical Islamist would of course put nothing over Islam.

This just sounds like excuse making for a respectable 'grey' position. In any other case we'd be able to recognize that there are plenty of people with strong beliefs that fail in living up to their beliefs every single day of their lives. Be that not going to church, drinking alcohol or any other example you prefer. And we could all recognize that this failure does not need to, in any way, deter these people from pushing their beliefs on society. Be that legislatively or otherwise. But because the red tribe correctly sees the likes of Omar as obvious 'enemies', we, the respectables, have to distance ourselves from that in some way.

I only say this because the excuses in use here are so poor I can't see what else it could be. As an illustrative example, a nationalist in Poland could say 'I'm Polish first, Christian second' and we could all recognize that the ethnic and the religious, whilst often closely related, are not the same and no one would feel the need to question his anti-abortion pro-Christian social policies in Poland just because he said this. Yet somehow, in the case of Omar, we act not just as if her saying this is meaningful, we drag red tribe terminology like 'radical Islam' into our writing and purposefully distance ourselves from it.

If there is a reason for the ‘red tribe’ to dislike Omar’s politics it’s because she’s a progressive who proudly represents a largely unassimilated migrant community, not because she’s an Islamist. She’s not ‘worse’ than AOC because she’s Somali instead of Puerto Rican. It’s likely that as with Tlaib her communal origin affects eg her views on Israel, but there are plenty of white progressives with the same views on that subject too.

She’s married to the white guy she cheated on her husband with (and who, afaik, did not convert to Islam) and barely even covers her hair, the suggestion she was a radical Islamist is pretty ridiculous.

I always suspected she covers her hair mostly out if vanity (she suffers some form of alopecia based on old photos).

I am sure I've heard similar statements of ethnic solidarity from other politicians.

Examples?

I can only think of examples from overseas, and all of them have come to my attention because of Western (more progressive than not) backlash against the statements. One place I would've expected ethnic messaging is in Wab Kinew's victory speech (the first Native American Premier in Canada), but the closest he got was (paraphrasing from @2:53)"I want to speak to young [Native American children]. I want to speak to all youth, and people of all ages, but young [Native American children] in particular:..."

Remember Mike Pence's catch-phrase?

"I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican - in that order."

That sounded to me like a statement that his solidarity with Christians overrides his solidarity with conservatives, and that this overrides his solidarity with his party.

Or do 'Christians' not count as an ethnicity in this context?

But if you want national or ethnic identity specifically, as far as I can tell foreign-born congressmen do often play that card? For instance, Ted Lieu was born in Taiwan, and he advocates on Taiwan's behalf. Young Kim was born in Korea and she describes herself as a "bridge builder between our two countries", and appears to advocate for greater US-Korean cooperation, apparently "lobbying the Biden administration to ensure countries that have free-trade pacts with the U.S., such as South Korea, receive better treatment under laws that award special benefits to domestic companies". That sounds like some kind of solidarity with the nation of her birth? Raja Krishnamoorthi seems to recommend strengthening the US-India relationship, including bringing India into NATO PLUS.

It doesn't seem that rare for US politicians born in other countries to retain a level of interest in their home country, and to advocate for that country's interests in partnership with the United States.

Even if Christians were to count as a quasi ethnic group, they are one that is more integral to American-ness.

On the opposite side a Muslim is a more foreign identity.

This isn't to say that prioritizing Christianity too much can't be even be considred treasonous to a country. For example someone supporting open borders with Christian countries that would result in the replacement of the people with foreigners.

Isn't that just a rendition of "God, guns, and government" - a party slogan or credo, but with the blanks filled in?

Remember Mike Pence's catch-phrase?

The categories he highlighted (religion, political philosophy, party membership) are perfectly compatible with being American. I'd have some issues if he recognized the divine authority and infallibility of the Pope, but I don't think that has happened.

As for placing his party last? Meh. Politicians playing political games within the structure of a political event. I'd like my representatives to be loyal to the party I vote for, but that's merely a practical stance. It's not like I'd want Alain Rayes charged with pseudo-treason for leaving his party.

I don't have any problem with Americans pushing for better relations with Taiwan, South Korea, or any other country. It doesn't matter if their hobbyhorse happens to line up with the country of their birth, either. Neither of your links had any suggestion that they were anything but American.

Omar's speech sets herself up as a Somalian who happens to live in the US. She calls Somalia "our country", while she merely "live[s] in this country." when talking about the US. She frames President Hassan Sheikh as the leader of an ethnostate that she (and the audience) is a part of.

Which is an interesting way to frame it, actually, considering that Somalia is not an ethnostate. Only around 85% of Somalians are ethnic Somalis, and there are large populations of Somalis in neighbouring Ethiopia and Kenya; and, of course, Somaliland has been a persistent issue however much Somalia would like it not to be. The current constitution of Somalia (it is admittedly provisional; it's not the most stable part of the world) defines the country in terms of 'inclusive representation of the people' (Article 1), in Article 8 asserts that people of Somalia 'are one, indivisible, and comprise all the citizens', and in Article 11 outlaws discrimination on the basis of race, clan, tribe, ethnicity, and birth.

This may not be followed much in practice, but certainly de jure Somalia is not an ethnostate. It does not appear to present itself as the country of the Somalis, not does it seem to aspire to be that, at least officially.

It's possible that Omar is just choosing inapposite words, or appealing to national rather than ethnic identity in an awkward way. It is, at least, clear that Omar feels an identification with Somalia, and her statement that "Somalia belngs to all Somalis" suggests that she would like it to be an ethnostate, even if it currently isn't. Or maybe she's just equivocating between 'Somali' and 'Somalian' - imprecise language being the eternal curse of politics.

Really, I think we could all do with a bit more discussion of what she's specifically angry about - this seems like a reasonable intro. The short version today is that (formerly British) Somaliland is a large chunk of (former Italian Somaliland) Somalia, and it thinks it's independent and operates semi-autonomously. Somaliland recently made a deal to give Ethiopia a strip of land in exchange for progress in recognising its aspirations of independence; the Somalian position, naturally, is that this is illegal and Ethiopia trying to illegally acquire sovereign Somalian territory. Many Somalians outside of Somalia agree with the Somalian position here, and Omar is talking to them.

It's hard to think of a good analogous group in the US - the Somalian situation here is pretty unusual.

Man, I thought the immigration fraud argument was stupid when it came up years ago, and I think it’s stupid now. Are you the same guy who brought it up on Reddit? Because I’m pretty sure you’re citing the exact same tabloid. Do you have anything more credible?

  • -16

Why do you think it's stupid? Do you think it's simply not true? Or that it is true but doesn't matter? Or that she should have been able to bring her brother over at any time, so she was justified? What? Because I'm fairly certain it's true, and no, I don't have anything that could be cited on wikipedia to mollify you. Just local reporters that have dug around, which is where the story first got legs, and rumors in the Somalis in Minnesota.

Fill me in as a bystander, please. I am not adversarial to this point of view. In fact, I despise Ilhan Omar and would like the claim to be true because it's politically damaging to an adversary and hilarious. I just haven't actually seen any evidence that meets a remotely stringent standard of epistemology. Is there better evidence than it sounding plausible, being damaging to an adversary, and hilarious?

If you'll forgive links to PoliFact and the Daily Mail, I think these give a rough overview of the information involved.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/18/did-ilhan-omar-marry-her-brother-her-hometown-news/

Basically she married Hirsi, divorced him, married Elmi but kept filing taxes with Hirsi, divorced Elmi and remarried Hirsi (she later divorced Hirsi and married a staffer of hers but I don't think it's relevant here, other than perhaps revealing she doesn't shy away from divorce).

I think the evidence does look like something shady went on with her marriage to Elmi, which may have been around getting him into the US so he could go to school. Though I note he was a British citizen and getting an F-1 visa is pretty straightforward as a British citizen in my direct experience. No evidence here that he is her brother however.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9891015/Claims-DNA-match-proves-Ilhan-Omar-married-brother.html

Here we have a claim that a Republican activist compared DNA from a cigarette claimed to have been smoked by Omar with DNA from a straw claimed to have been used by Elmi and that it showed a genetic match. However we have only their word that was the case, and they could have simply submitted DNA from any two siblings, as of course the lab wasn't present at the collection. Taking advantage of a pre-existing rumour to manufacture evidence? Or a true fact?

Apparently social media posts may lend credence to the idea Elmi is gay, which may speak to being part of an immigration scam marriage, but then again he is also apparently living back in the UK.

If I were pressed, given my knowledge of Islamic family practices, I might think Elmi was likely a cousin or close family friend. It's not unknown for marriages to cover for gay men in general, so I suspect their marriage wasn't "real". The DNA test is I think hopelessly tainted, so whether he is actually her brother is up in the air. Though it's possible someone with more knowledge of DNA tests might be able to see something those in the results that is dispositive.

I don't really believe you have any firsthand knowledge of Somali rumors.

Of course I don't. It's second and thirdhand.

I also don't have firsthand knowledge from the local reporters, because I'm not local.

That it’s not true. I spent some time trying to dig up my response from the last time it came up, but had no luck. Reddit’s search tools have only gotten worse.

I believe my argument boiled down to “why does this cigarette have so much credibility?”

I don’t have much problem with her speech. America has long had people with other loyalties. I myself would likely need to take directions from the Pope before the POTUS.

I do think the Nationalist and ethnonationalist have a legitimate beef with her.

According to her Somlia is for the Somalians and according the ADL Israel is for the Jews. But that doesn’t stop them from ripping on any domestic nationalist sympathies in the US. Concerns about limiting immigration etc should be valid arguments to these people. And voting her out of office and deporting her brother seem very valid.

I myself would likely need to take directions from the Pope before the POTUS.

Which has historically been an argument against Catholic immigration in many countries, including in the US. Then again, the Pope can't even get Ireland to do as he asks, so this is not a plausible problem today.

Do you have that same energy for the US congressman Brian Mast who wore his IDF uniform to Congress and said

“As the only member to serve with both the United States Army and the Israel Defense Forces, I will always stand with Israel,” Mast wrote in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, alongside several photos of him wearing the uniform Friday.

and then:

“Tlaib’s got her flag. I got my uniform,” Mast wrote. “’Global Day of Rage’ my ass.”

Someone like this, along with the Israel lobby, is much more likely to hurt the US and get it into stupid foreign entanglements because of hi dual loyalty than anyone in the Squad.

While I consider all dual citizenship objectionable, and would lightly call for the deportation of all such peoples to their other place of citizenship (excepting those who's other countries would not allow them to renounce) Israel should be at the bottom of any such lists. They would, literally, be my last priority. Their concerns are legitimate. I think there is a major political party in America that is on track to seek their extinction as a race. So, yeah, when we have rid ourselves of the dual loyalty Mexican, Somali, Canadian, Chinese, and other X-Americans, we can deal with the Israeli problem. But I doubt we will have much such problems when all those others are sent away.

  • -12

Israel is the first priority. Israel spies on America and sells its secrets. It also lobbies the US to fight its wars and give it money. If Israel isn't the first priority then this whole thing is pointless. There's nobody from Taiwan or China in the US government doing this. I don't want to hear this argument until all Israeli first sympathizers are expelled from America and stripped of their citizenship. And that includes Americans like Sheldon Adelson.

It's 100% true that Israel spies on the United States, but this is very normal (for example, the US was caught spying on Germany, and France is apparently notorious for running SIGINT collections at international military exercises) in international relations. FVEYS might be the one group in the world that actually doesn't spy on each other.

And it's 100% not true that China or Taiwan isn't lobbying (Taiwan definitely does) or spying on it (China definitely does).

(A historical aside, but I am not sure anything Israel has done has been as consequential as the coordinated British effort, which included espionage, to get us into the World Wars. The Zimmerman note would never have come to light if it was not for British espionage on US diplomatic traffic.)

FVEYS might be the one group in the world that actually doesn't spy on each other.

I thought this was known to be false, as another layer of end-run around restrictions on SIGINT against citizens? If eg MI6 spies on an American citizen on American soil and relays it to NSA with the expectation of reciprocation, it's not NSA doing the spying, and therefore totally in the clear.

I'm not talking about lobbying. I'm talking about Zionist Jews (sometimes with Israeli citizenship) serving in the US government at the highest levels. There is nobody like that for China yet there are who knows how many people like this for Israel. It's no shock that the largest recipient of foreign aid and the next biggest ones are the countries that recognize it. And we're not talking about just spying. What Israel does is leagues beyond that including selling secrets to its enemies. Israel and Jews are so far beyond what any other country does that it's not even comparable. So I don't even want to hear about The Squad until Israel is dealt with. Zionist Jews could start WW3, while Ilhan would just get the US in some entanglement in Africa that doesn't really matter. I think you could make a serious argument that Zionist Jews in the US government are literally the biggest threat to world peace.

When you make inflammatory claims, you need to bring evidence. “Could,” “would,” “who knows”—elaborate on these, and use them to make it clear why you stand by your claims.

FVEYS might be the one group in the world that actually doesn't spy on each other.

I would bet against that, except there's no way to resolve the bet. I'm sure all countries involved attempt to get intelligence beyond the scope of the agreement, one way or another.

I alluded to that same point regarding Israel vs. US interests/American people with a conservative on Twitter named Katya Sedgwick (who I interviewed a while back partially in the topic of the Ukraine proxy war, which we were both against, but October 7th has put us at odds).

The argument of cultural affinity and geopolitical good sense was the answer I got, to differentiate Israel/Jews vs. Somalia/Muslims. Highly questionable in my opinion, both as far as blowback and a Jewish ethnostate not particularly resonating with Americans on the ground nor their interests.

I think that, the US not being an ethnostate, given the levels of functionality being present, comparatively, in Somali and Jewish culture is a valid basis for comparison. Unassimilated Jews I have no more beef with than assimilated Jews(assuming the welfare queens are excluded from consideration); Somalis are a different story.

And an ethnostate America on a factual basis is not, and hasn't been since like 1830 at the latest. Poorly assimilated minorities are simply part of the American experience; it's fair to discriminate among those minorities, and for deleterious effects on American interests levy criticism, but on the whole having people that speak two languages at home and practice old country folkways is the rule in American history, not the exception.

Everything I said about Omar could also be said about Mast, or Schumer. I think anyone who holds two passports should be ineligible to serve in any branch of any state or federal government, and I'm leaning towards county and municipal government, too. I have no patience for dual loyalties and no shame about it. What you linked was two foreigners arguing about their foreign lands, and I, an American, don't care about anything east of Greenland, west of Alaska, or South of Darien. Neither one of them should be in Congress.

Hell, I think you shouldn't be able to vote at all unless you've been in the country for 18 years, and the only reason I say 18 and not 21 is because the constitution is too difficult to amend. I think you shouldn't even be able to vote when you move states!

But I didn't want to start a thread about the perfidy of the Jews and the influence of AIPAC. I certainly could, but I didn't. I don't consider them American any more than I do anyone else who holds a hyphen.

I would just like to note for the record here that in Australia, it's unconstitutional for dual-citizens to serve in Federal Parliament (there's a minor exception in case of people who've attempted to formally renounce their foreign citizenship and failed; some countries don't allow renunciation of citizenship).

For the curious, there was a mild parliamentary crisis about that a few years back - hilariously, it turned out that a significant number of sitting MPs were dual citizens and had just forgotten about it, because no one remembers or checks that.

That said, I feel that it's worth clarifying that the Australian provision here is only for MPs and the radical isolationism that KMC seems to recommend is a fair distance away from that. If nothing else, not caring about anything outside of America's borders seems like a recipe for disaster for America itself.

According to Wiki, he lost his legs while serving in the US military in Afghanistan in 2010, and then volunteered in Israel (presumably not in a combat capacity) several years later. It’s not a good look, but he at least has dual loyalty!

Some people don't even serve one country, and this guy serves two?

Do you have that same energy for the US congressman Brian Mast who wore his IDF uniform to Congress and said

I'll say this: if you are a dual citizen, you should not be able to serve in congress, and probably shouldn't be able to serve in any role whatsoever in government including police. I'll even go so far as to say that only natural born US citizens should be able to serve in congress.

Re the first one, does this extend to cases where someone's a dual citizen due to essentially not being able to get rid of their second citizenship? Dual citizenships have been a bit of a topic in Finland in the recent years since the most common dual citizenship is Russian but, for instance, I have a friend who has such a dual citizenship and would like to get rid of it but essentially can't, since he'd have to physically go to Russia for that and there's a high chance he'd get punished for such an attempt, particularly since he's been a vocal opponent of Putin's policies and they might as well just go and forcibly draft him and throw him at the front.

The way Australia rules this is that if you've made a good-faith attempt to renounce foreign citizenship then you count as being only an Australian as far as Australia's concerned (and thus can be elected to Parliament). There are, after all, some countries that do not allow renunciation at all.

Re the first one, does this extend to cases where someone's a dual citizen due to essentially not being able to get rid of their second citizenship?

Yes. There are many jobs that your friend would still be eligible for.

The bounds of this are interesting. Let's say I'm an absolute dictator in a brand new country in western asia (some breakaway province that it's convenient for the rest of the world to recognize), let's call it Trollistan. Can I keep people unfriendly to me out of your government by declaring them citizens and then not allowing them to revoke the citizenship?

If not, why? If it's because they didn't chose Trollistan, it doesn't seem that different than someone being born somewhere (which they don't chose), and then not being allowed to give the citizenship up later.

Do you really see no difference between:

  • Has never been to a place.

  • Was born in a place, was a citizen of a place, eventually left the place and went to another place and went through the process of becoming a citizen of that second, new place where they weren't born

?

I see a difference in that. But that's not what we're talking about here, considering natural born citizenship generally passes from parents to children, not only to people that are born in a place. Being born in a place automatically conferring citizenship is kind of a new world thing, most places in the old world don't do that (source)

In the current world, you can be a citizen of a place you've never been to already. And you can be incapable of giving up that citizenship. And that doesn't seem to be an exception for you, so I'm not sure why it's an important difference here.

The relevant difference is:

  • Place your family has history
  • Place your family doesn't have history

If that's not the relevant difference, I think you need to start carving out some exemptions to your policy.

By that reasoning it's fine to bar him from taking part in any job whose name starts with the letters Q through Z. After all, even with that restriction there are many jobs he could take.

But it's totally arbitrary. Why do we have an interest in preventing someone from taking some jobs just because they refuse to put themselves in physical danger by going to Russia?

The government by its nature exerts power over me. It takes my money (by force), and implements behavioral prescriptions that it enforces with violence.

That's different than most jobs, and because of that different scrutiny should be applied to the people being entrusted with that power. I'm sorry your friend really wants to have that power but can't, but honestly in this scenario I am going to start wondering why they want the power that badly.

but honestly in this scenario I am going to start wondering why they want the power that badly.

Probably for the same reason they'd want a job that starts with the letters Q through Z: because you need to have a job to live, and you're better off when a big chunk of the possible jobs aren't automatically barred from you in advance. Expecting someone to go to Russia to be jailed or drafted, before you'd hire them, is unreasonable.

What country are you in? Your friend has also chosen to eliminate themselves from all of the jobs in India by not moving to India and trying to get a job there, presumably. Why, if this is just a matter of increasing the possible number of jobs available, do they not do that?

More comments

Would it be ok to ban say Christians from offices of state power? It's an easy claim that their loyalty is to God before country. And if they complain, well why do they want power so badly?

Nations are by default nationalistic and self interested. Your religion is orthogonal to your nationality.

Do I think a muslim should be allowed to be the Pope? Similarly no.

More comments

What a brilliant idea. Perhaps offices of state power should strive to resemble /r/antiwork's mod team.

More comments

I don't see how you can reasonably construe this speech as a problem.

Plenty of Americans describe themselves as "Irish" or "German" or whatever without trying to imply they are less American. American's do this so much that there are thousands of memes making fun of us for it. So I see getting bent that a Somali-American calls herself Somali as just a thinly veiled boo outgroup.

Plenty of Americans describe themselves as "Irish" or "German" or whatever without trying to imply they are less American.

It should go without saying but: She didn't call herself Somali. She gave a speech advocating for Somali interests and called herself Somali.

Fair to say that's a different thing from half-Indian Jay highlighting his heritage at the icebreaker.

I don't see how you can reasonably construe this speech as a problem.

I can see how "our land will not be balkanized" might be considered a problem for Somaliland residents, or "Our lands were taken from us before, and God willing, we may one day seek them" for some Kenyans and Ethiopians. Irredentism is all fun and games until a Putin or a Hamas get serious about it.

That still wouldn't excuse the mistranslating (assuming it was a mistranslation) of other parts of the speech to make them sound much more inflammatory than they were.

There are not actually very many German-Americans that would burn much mental energy on a maritime dispute between Germany and Sweden. Perhaps a century ago, but then ethnogenesis happened, and now German-Americans are simply Americans that enjoy Oktoberfest slightly more than the median. Omar is distinctly not-American in a way that is simply not true of Americans of old German stock.

now German-Americans are simply Americans that enjoy Oktoberfest slightly more than the median

Very true. German-Americans coming to Germany stick out as entirely American with nothing German about them.

So either their good German blood was diluted, or being German is a cultural categorization rather than a biological one.

From personal experience, I would say little of Column A, little of Column B. It's true that I'm not entirely German, depending on a few ancestry gaps that I'm not clear on, I'm in the ~70-75% range, with the rest being mostly old stock English. But really, I don't think it's that genetic distance that makes it visually obvious that I'm not a real German - you can tell from posture, from movement, from other subtle visual queues that I really can't even describe. The inverse of this is easy to see if you go to California - it's trivial to tell the difference between Asian immigrants and Asian-Americans before they ever say a word. I've always thought this was a pretty neat part of culture, that it's not just norms and preferences, but carries all the way down to unconscious movement patterns.

Also, Germans are just very... German. I'm distinctly a Midwestern Amerikaner, not a real German.

Oddly enough, some Midwestern women still seem very German to me, even the younger ones. Partly this is physical appearance, but also certain almost indescribable mannerisms, such as their quiet and careful speech. In contrast, I have never met an American man who seems German, even if he looks like something out of a "Visit Niederdorla!" catalogue.

Those Germans became full americans because of heavy assimilative pressure, not because of the action of time.

I know you don’t disagree with me. But on the eve of WWI support for Germany was a meaningful force in US politics and it took coercive assimilative pressure to stop. This will not happen for Somalis, and I feel like making that point, specifically. When will Minnesota make it illegal to speak Somali in schools?

I'm bordering on shitposting here, but it amuses me to think about Woodrow Wilson the son of Southern Confederates getting his revenge on stalwart Republican Germans.

The (arguable) long-term realignment of both sides of the Civil War into the Trump coalition is something to behold. I say this as an upper Southerner whose classmates frequently wore Confederate flag T-shirts while being blissfully unaware that their ancestors hailed from the most Unionist part of my state.

That image doesn’t quite work since the Germans were still a very heavily Democratic constituency on the eve of WWI. In fact, Wilson’s about-face (campaigning on “he kept us out of war” and then entering it against the Germans) was one factor that led the German-American vote to become much more Republican.

Examples of heavy pressure:

  • 30 Germans were killed by vigilantes
  • Hundreds were beaten or tarred and feathered
  • Thousands of Germans were interned in both world wars.
  • German cultural expressions were actively repressed with things like a machine gun being taken to a Milwaukee theater to cancel performances of William Tell, states banning education in German, discrimination against people and places with Germanic names (which is why those surnames asound Jewish today they came after the Germans had changed their names to English sounding surnames).

Yes, we are on exactly the same page. When I say "ethnogenesis happened", what I really mean is that the door was slammed on immigration for decades, two World Wars applied aggressive coercion against sympathies for homelands, and multiple generations of time passed with ethnic intermixing and population migration.

I am of the stance that all government materials should be printed in English with no exceptions. People that cannot communicate in English are choosing to be not-American. Forcing them to adopt English (or at least for their children to) is for everyone's betterment in the long run.

ethnic intermixing

Was it eigen or one of the other little tpots who was postulating that that might be a non-trivial component of increased divorces in America? Interracialethnic marriages with very different cultural norms/lifestyle expectations being less stable than the intraethnic marriages that were the norm prior to the great wars.

Exactly.

Most people (probably even here) naively assume that the US is one uninterrupted string of mass immigration since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.

But of course that isn't the case.

Most recently, immigration was at very low levels for 40 years from 1924–1965 with strict limits on the national origins of immigrants. It was during those crucial decades that most of the hyphenated Americans stopped being Italians, Irish, and Polish and started being just regular Americans.

There are far more Somalians in Somalia than there are in the US and almost all of them would rather be in the US. We need at least 40 years to assimilate the ones we already have before letting more in. There is unlimited demand for migration, but the the US has a very limited ability to assimilate newcomers.

(or at least for their children to)

I thought second-generation immigrants nearly universally spoke English natively, with the possible exception of some insular religious communities like the Amish. Are there notable exceptions that I'm missing?

I flat out don't believe that based on my experience with second generation Hispanic immigrants, who data suggests are one of the better assimilating groups.

The explosion of ESL classes in public schools suggests otherwise.

What explosion would this be?

Googling around, combining this piece and this piece, I get about about 8.1% of public school students were ELLs in 2000, 9.2% in 2010, 9.5% in 2015, and 10.3% in 2020. That seems like a quite slow and gradual increase over the last twenty years - hardly worth being called an 'explosion'.

There's more data here - the vast majority, over 75%, of ELLs are native speakers of Spanish, which suggests to me that we're mostly talking about migrants from South and Central America. I'd guess that the slow increase in English language education is probably just a result of the rate of immigration from Latin America increasing.

I see no evidence that the very modest increase is driven by second-generation immigrants living in ethnic enclaves and refusing to learn English. It seems entirely understandable if it's all first-generation.

EDIT: Wait, let me get this straight.

First person makes a huge and unsupported claim in one sentence.

Second person questions that claim, providing hard data that seems to contradict it.

The result is that the first person is upvoted, and the second person downvoted? What? What happened to rationalism? I don't think I was rude in any way - I was asking for evidence for a claim.

Maybe it's just a perception issue, since my state is top 10 in ELL. The two most populous states, California and Texas, are also the two with the highest proportion of ELL students.

By gross numbers you have a 35% increase over 19 years.

As for your edit, this isn't the rationalist thread, it's the culture war thread. We're at least three steps removed from rationalism by the time you've reached here.

It needs to happen for the Mexicans before it needs to happen to the Somalis, but we simply don't have the will to do it anymore.

I have the will, but I don't have the allies.

Please find me an Irish congressman addressing Irish in America in Irish about how Ireland is "we" and not "they."

Better yet, find me a German congressman who calls himself German, speaks to Germans living in America in German, about the need to keep Germany for the Germans.

Or, even better, find me a Somali in Somalia who says makes fun of Omar for pretending to be Somali. Please, demonstrate this supposed equivalence. It's not the same, it's not close to same. It's offensive to even equate the two.

The Germans were rightly discouraged from doing this. They know better. The Somalis ought to know better, too, and if it takes their brightest star being cast out of my country in disgrace for them to learn, then so much the better.

These people are foreigners, regardless of laws or citizenship, and they have no desire to assimilate.

Better yet, find me a German Bundestagsabgeordneten who calls himself German, speaks to Germans living in America in German, about the need to keep Germany for the Germans.

Entirely plausible, but would almost certainly be someone from the AfD, which means he'd be either conspicuously ignored or thoroughly discredited by the German press - and I guess would go unnoticed by the American press. Do you guys notice Germany at all?

Please find me an Irish congressman addressing Irish in America in Irish

Well the main language in Ireland is English, and Irish is not even spoken by a majority of the population there, less than 40% have "some" ability to speak it. It's highly unlikely then anyone would be addressing a full speech in Irish, not because they assimilated to the US, but because even most Irish people would not understand it! I think your requirements for something that matches her speech are way too narrow but I will give you a brief set of examples below about how strong the Irish grip on America is. The Irish lobby in the US is arguably weakening but it is still huge. And I think it is hard to say her speech is worse than the actual actions taken across decades (from your point of view).

Having said that Peter King was a congressman until 2021 and he spoke repeatedly on the idea that the IRA was legitimately trying to create a free Ireland for his people.

"Speaking at a pro-IRA rally in 1982 in Nassau County, New York, King pledged support to "those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry."

"Shouts of "Long live the King" marked the annual St Patrick's Day parade here -- cheers for Peter King, a militant supporter of the Irish Republican Army who led 200,000 marchers up Fifth Avenue. King, the financial controller of suburban Nassau County, was named grand marshal of the parade after a bitter two-month campaign. "I was elected to send a clear message to England to get out of Ireland," he said. "The IRA's violence is only a reaction to violence started by the British Government.""

He spoke to try and stop the US government deporting Irish terrorists:

"Reps. Pete King (R-L.I.) and Tom Manton (D-Queens) will lead the speeches in support of Irish political figures such as Brian Pearson, whom the Immigration and Naturalization Service wants to deport as a terrorist.

"We want to focus attention on the terrible abuse of power by the Justice Department to deport these decent men," said King, Sinn Fein's biggest cheerleader in Congress."

And here we have another congressman saying support for meeting the queen is ok because "more Irish" (implying of course that he is himself at least somewhat Irish) people support it (this his position is not determined by what is good for the US)

"Democratic Congressman Richard Neal of Massachusetts, leader of the Friends of Ireland group in Congress and a vocal supporter of the peace process, told the Irish Voice he was surprised and pleased by the gesture. “None of us are more Irish than Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and John Hume,” he said. “If they say it’s okay, it’s okay for me."

We can also add Ronald Reagan saying Ireland was "home" and talking about how he had so many Irish-Americans in his cabinet that he had to fight them off Air Force One, and that he was an Irishman himself.

"Now, of course I didn't exactly expect a chilly reception. As I look around this chamber, I know I can't claim to be a better Irishman than anyone here, but I can perhaps claim to be an Irishman longer than most any of you here."

"I think you know, though, that Ireland has been much in our thoughts since the first days in office. I'm proud to say the first Embassy I visited as President was Ireland's, and I'm proud that our administration is blessed by so many Cabinet members of Irish extraction. Indeed I had to fight them off Air Force One or there wouldn't be anyone tending the store while we're gone. And that's not to mention the number of Irish Americans who hold extremely important leadership posts today in the United States Congress."

Or the so-called "four horsemen" of the Irish-American political grouping who used their influence to lobby the UK to treat their ancestral homeland differently? Sure they didn't say exactly what you asked.. but actions speak louder than words. They didn't just give speeches, they raised money and influenced government policy.

Whatever was said about Somalia and Somalians it probably also doesn't match up to Irish-Americans raising money for a violent group dedicated to unification of Ireland. Unless you think loyalty to Ireland had nothing to do with it of course.

Thank you.

Yes, the Irish have refused integration most assiduously, making all of the complaints about their initial migration justified in retrospect. I can only hope that we have since learned our lessons, and that we do not keep making the same mistake, over and over and over.

Well....except that nowadays that doesn't appear to be the case. Most of the things I quoted are from the 80s into the 90s.

Even the various Irish lobbies are of the opinion that time has passed.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/17/the-declining-political-significance-of-irish-american-identity/

And if Reagan of all people would not be considered a true American, then I fear you may be a little miscalibrated.

Pretty sure if you went back a hundred years ago when Irish immigrants were coming to the country through Ellis Island, there were probably numerous speeches given by congressmen and government officials at places like Tammany Hall that both were about how that particular Irish leader was looking out for the Irish constituents in America but also making sure that that the USA relationship with Ireland would only grow stronger and they promised that their home island would be subject to less bullying from England because of their American leverage.

I would put huge money on that any wasp republican from that time period would say the same exact thing as you regarding those Irish and Italians. That they are foreigners, have no respect for this nation and its culture and have no real desire to assimilate.

To a large extent you're true. I think first gen immigrants have a strong attachment to their country of origin and will always be like this. You can see it in other groups like how Indians Americans were in full force when Narendra Modi visited America, ect.

I think you're overestimating though how that makes any difference in the light of time. Children who grow up in America are mostly Americanized completely. Few younger Indian Americans care much about Indian politics, I know many Ethiopians who grew up here and though they are saddened by their recent civil war, they didn't shed tears like their parents did because their attachment to Ethiopia is more of a general vague identity and cultural traditions. Not the land or even its people. My Brazilian origin ex visits her grandparents and extended family in Brazil every couple of years and has somewhat strong ties to Brazil visiting it fairly often as a child, but she isn't Brazilian. She knows Portuguese, and loves the food of her country, follows some traditions and is culturally catholic, but she's American. She's not religious, dates people from every ethnic background, her favorite cuisine is Korean and lives to watch trashy american reality tv.

America is America and people are much too busy to care that much when its not a firsthand direct connection. Now, will my exes potential grandchild go to a liberal arts college one day and become a super woke identiterian using her latino and brazilian heritage as a crutch to not have or develop a real personality? Quite possibly, but that's also a uniquely American thing too.

I would put huge money on that any wasp republican from that time period would say the same exact thing as you regarding those Irish and Italians.

Eh, the Italians were relatively Republican (as were the Germans) while the Irish leaned Democratic (AFAIK there's still a decent-sized partisan gap between Americans of German or Italian ancestry and those with Irish ancestry.). It's not a coincidence that Antonin Scalia and Ron DeSantis are big Republican names while the Democrats still boast politicians like Joe Biden and Mike Duggan. The GOP of that era thought that the Great Migration (Party of Lincoln!) was going to save them from the white ethnic hordes.

I believe the Germans were mostly Democrats during the peak periods of German immigration. The liberal, largely atheistic Forty-Eighters were almost all Republicans, but they were, despite their outsized cultural influence, a tiny minority of German immigrants. The majority were conservative Catholics and Lutherans who had little use for the Republican party. The midwestern German-Americans began to warm up to the Republicans before WWI, but they didn’t switch en mass until after.

The Texas Germans voted Republican for a while IIRC, and they were conservative enough to schizophrenically larp about seceding to set up a Hapsburg monarchy.

That is interesting. Do you know what group that was? I know there were a few… attempts, if you can call it that; it would probably be more accurate to say idle day-dreams… to create a new Germany in the Midwest (every one of which fizzled out almost immediately as the immigrants realized that the USA was actually pretty great). I hadn’t heard of anything similar in Texas, but then I’m only really familiar with a couple of German communities down there.

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/adelsverein

They were successful enough that Texas had it's own dialect of German(which still has like a thousand native speakers in nursing homes in central Texas) and Fredericksburg is still a major town. Can't find a source on the monarchism RN but I swear they were planning it originally.

More comments

My understanding is that Catholic and "traditional" Lutheran Germans were Democrats and the pietist Lutheran and Calvinist Germans were Republicans.

You are correct, and I shouldn’t have glossed over that distinction. The pietistic German Lutherans and Reformed tended to assimilate much more quickly than their Catholic and traditional Lutheran counterparts, with many joining Methodist or Baptist churches, supporting Prohibition, opposing parochial schools, and rather quickly dropping their “hyphenated” German-American identities, in many cases anglicizing their names in the process. These were much more likely to join the Republican party prior to WWI. The German freethinkers, with their singing and athletic clubs, were even more strongly Republican.

The Republicans actually had some decent success in courting traditional Lutherans and Catholics, but they had a habit of shooting themselves in the foot every couple of years and driving those groups back to the Democrats. Prohibition was the longest-lived issue, causing friction from the 1850s until the passage of the 18th Amendment, with the Republicans typically in favor and the Democrats typically opposed. Then in 1889, Illinois and Wisconsin passed laws requiring children to attend English-speaking schools, which led to a massive backlash from the traditional German communities and concomitant electoral victories for the Democrats. (There had already been quite a few skirmishes over Bible reading and prayer in the public schools before then, which an uneasy alliance of Catholics, traditional Lutherans, and German freethinkers opposed.)

Interestingly, the Scandinavians, being mostly Pietistic, were a pretty reliable Republican vote early on, though that naturally shifted over the years as the parties changed.

In Indiana, there was an additional wrinkle in the 1920s. The Ku Klux Klan popped up in the state during WWI, then flourished massively in the early 1920s, before dying off just as quickly as it had grown. Unlike in the south, the Indiana Klan was not primarily an anti-black organization, but was anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant, and anti-Catholic, with animosity toward traditional Lutherans typically thrown in with those last two. The Klan was technically bipartisan but was more closely associated with the Republicans, which probably hampered the German vote’s transition to that party.

Very interesting post.

Eh, the Italians were relatively Republican (as were the Germans) while the Irish leaned Democratic (AFAIK there's still a decent-sized partisan gap between Americans of German or Italian ancestry and those with Irish ancestry.).

In the GSS, Italians lean more heavily Democrat than the Irish and both are significantly more Democrat than Republican. In this sample, the only white categories that don't lean Democrat overall are the British, the Scandinavians and the Germans & Dutch.

Relevantly, there were congressmen with ties to the IRA all through the troubles.

Put up, then. If they exist, you should be able to put them in front of me, not just speculate about their existence.

If you found such a speech, by the way, my response would be that the sentiment was rightly crushed by limited immigration and forced assimilation. Before that happened they were not American in any sense. And nobody would be defending it, or saying the Irish were just as American despite their need of a hyphen.

That they are foreigners, have no respect for this nation and have no real desire to assimilate.

As true then as it is today. The way to disprove such an accusation is, of course, to assimilate and interbreed, and that takes decades.

Please find me an Irish congressman addressing Irish in America in Irish about how Ireland is "we" and not "they."

I'm not sure it's exactly what you're asking for, but the Irish community in America raised funds and trafficked arms for the IRA for decades, and I would not be surprised if Irish-American politicians participated at least somewhat in their actions. Financing and supplying a terror campaign against one of our core allies is, with some distance, a pretty significant action.

Indeed. The movie Blown Away with Jeff Bridges covers some of this territory actually (lol, I know)

You come into my house and recommend that movie in front of my face?

It was pretty ludicrous all round, but the one scene that made everyone in the cinema groan out loud when I saw it in my home town was Lloyd and Tommy having a drink together, and smiling with pure delight when some eejit produced a round of flat pints which they then proceeded to knock back.

High crimes and misdemeanours right there! Gaze with horrified disbelief on this offence against God and all human decency!

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats