The "kind of thing" is a photograph of a Native American with the words: "You're all illegal."
I think the argument works, but perhaps only in a way those who favor more immigration would probably not be willing to say in words.
The image appropriated for the purposes of making this political argument is a photograph by Edward S. Curtis of a Nez Perce man, first published in 1899. I did a reverse Google search to find this out because I was aware of my own weakness in recognizing the various Native American historical figures and didn't want to accede to the use of this particular individual as a generic Native American. But this photograph doesn't seem to have ever had a particular individual's name attached to it, though we do get the name of a particular tribe, Nez Perce. I am also aware of my lack of knowledge of whether the Nez Perce in 1899 would think or say anything like "You're all illegal." I question whether those who are using this meme to push their policy preferences considered whether there was anything disrespectful or twisted about their appropriation.
("Nez Percé is an exonym given by French Canadian fur traders who visited the area regularly in the late 18th century, meaning literally 'pierced nose.'Today the Nez Perce identify most often as Niimíipu in Sahaptin. The tribe also uses the term "Nez Perce," as do the United States Government in its official dealings with them, and contemporary historians.")
Posts
59 comments:
There's no point in analyzing the argument. It is formulated on an emotional level, not an intellectual one and is used, not because it makes sense, but because it seems useful. When it takes hundreds of words to explain why a 3 word argument is nonsense, the 3 word argument will still carry weight because it sounds nice and is easy to remember.
"don't seem to have thought it through."
Well, exactly.
Much of modern "thought" is just the first surge of emotion, not the follow-up use of reason.
Then again, most old "thought" was probably pretty crappy too.
The original "Native" Americans ALSO came from elsewhere. No hands are pure.
Doesn't mean we should simply let anybody here who wants to come here. The world's problems are not OUR problems. Let the "international community" deal with it. Let the UN earn its money for the first time in its miserable existence.
In modern discourse, a kindergartener's view of "fairness" trumps all.
"The original "Native" Americans ALSO came from elsewhere. No hands are pure."
We're all foreigners
The effect of immigration depends on a lot of things--sheer numbers, where they're coming from, what skills or assets the immigrants are bringing, where they settle, and the nature of the country to which they're settling. A small town taking on three or four immigrant families is one thing, but taking on tens of thousands is quite another. An influx of skilled computer scientists from India or doctors from Argentina is going to have a much different effect than a glut of illiterate day laborers. And immigrants coming to a town with strong demand for labor (say, newly opened factories) will have a much different effect than immigrants coming to a town where businesses are constantly closing and the schools are already overcrowded.
How much did all the native americans like each other? Did they all just always peacefully agree on their borders?
"Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I'm just a Caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, did little demons get inside and type it? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts." - Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
MayBee said...How much did all the native americans like each other? Did they all just always peacefully agree on their borders?
When I first started learning Amercian history, I was perplexed that the Indians never managed to band together to resist the white folk. Ken Burns' The West series brilliantly (yet, I think, unintentionally) explained why not--because the Indians were constantly fighting each other over land just like they were fighting us over land. There's a point early on where Burns shows a map of the American West with tribal areas marked out, with borders moving over time. The map itself tells you which tribes got guns first, which tribes got horses first, because those tribes immediately took over the land of their neighbors (remember Wounded Knee and the sacred land of the Lakota Sioux? It had only been their land for about 50 years, they drove someone else off of it not so very long ago.)
The Indians couldn't organize against the whites because the whites weren't so different--every one was in conflict with every one, the white's were distinguishable only by their ultimate victory.
The men, women and children at the Whitman Mission in Walla Walla has yet to be heard from.
The settlers were the ones being hunted and killed by the Indian tribes who very simply wanted to steal their higher technology items rather than trade for them.
The secret to depopulating North America of tribes so we could settle here was a pandemic of Small Pox.
So the question should be whether the UN Resettlement guys coveting rule over this beautiful Continent have a designer plague headed our way?
Trad,
Lie,
Lie,
Lie,
Huh?
Trying to keep it simple for the redheaded Southern lawyer.
I think the argument works, but perhaps only in a way those who favor more immigration would probably not be willing to say in words.
How?
The "kind of thing" is a photograph of a Native American with the words: "You're all illegal."
That's one of dozens of examples of this kind of thing that I've seen in my Facebook feed. Here's another example. The details of any one graphic aren't that important; they're all making the same analogy. It's an analogy that goes against immigration, yet I assume everyone who posts these things is pro-immigration. So, what do you think I'm missing?
Sure looks like a young Chief Joseph to me.
The American Indians were not able to effectively defend themselves against the European onslaught.
We can do something about our current situation.
When the current round of emotional "arguments" fails to elicit surrender to the immigrants by the current occupants of the US and Europe, I predict the next round of progressive emotional appeals will follow the line of defaming those opposing immigration.
"Anti-immigration proposals are meant to kill them all! That is horrible!"
Unfortunately, the European history of the last centuries shows that the default decision of how to handle problematic populations, real or imagined, is to kill a lot of them. So I predict the emotional argument of the progs actually will increase the chances and speed the use of genocidal anti-immigration, much to their delight, as it will prove them right for once.
I'm in love with JAC's point. He's so right.
tim maguire- yes! you are absolutely right! That's one thing so ridiculous about the whole argument. The native americans didn't recognize each other as legal. Do people imagine this huge land was just going to remain unpopulated, or sparsely populated, forever?
Ken Burns' The West series brilliantly (yet, I think, unintentionally)
I find this with Ken Burns a lot. He is such a progressive. But when I watch his show (especially the one on prohibition) I learn the opposite lesson from the one he thought he was teaching. I was surprised to hear him discuss "Prohibition" and say he was making a point about the evil right wing. No way!
I've long since given up posting any response to Facebook-feed agitprop, but I did get a laugh out of John's second example when I saw it. This one.
Imagine a map of Europe that conjoined Vichy France with Gaulish Aremorica on one side, with the Ottoman Empire abutting the Minoans on the other. That's how wildly anachronistic this map is.
So, to make the analogy more clear, are the current emigrants declaring their Manifest Destiny to conquer our lands? If so, this is non-shooting war that may go hot at some as-yet-undetermined time?
As a Native American, how should I feel about this, if I accepted the collectivist lie that my identity informs my politics? I need a scorecard.
For those who are advocating greatly expanded immigration and harboring refugees, Peter Hitchens wrote a good article recently. While he was specifically writing about the immigration issue in the UK, it applies here as well.
Every one of the posturing notables simpering 'refugees welcome' should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.
If so, they mean it. If not, they are merely demanding that others pay and make room so that they can experience a self-righteous glow. No doubt the same people are also sentimental enthusiasts for the ‘living wage’, and ‘social housing’, when in fact open borders are steadily pushing wages down and housing costs up.
As William Blake rightly said: ‘He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.’
-- Peter Hitchens
Larry J- I was thinking along those lines when I heard about the people in Hungary, rushing out and giving families strollers so they could more easily continue their march to Germany. Apparently, they would apologize for their government's lack of humanity in not allowing them to stay in Hungary. I get that, but at the same time....none of them were offering their own homes to the refugees. They were making it easier for them to continue their way on to someone else's home.
Of course the argument works. Anti-immigrants implicitly assume that because they are citizens, they "own" the country. But that can't be right because the American Indians who were largely driven out by white settlers can make the same claim.
The truth is that no one owns a free country. Various parcels of land within the country are owned by individuals and organizations, including the largest landowner of all, the federal government. But if the country is actually free, landowners are individually free to sell some of their holdings to anyone they want to, including immigrants. When they do, it is a voluntary transaction between consenting adults and should be no one's business but their own.
Jeff- do you think the people making the argument actually want the US government to operate as if individuals can do whatever they want, without it being the government's business?
"'I think the argument works, but perhaps only in a way those who favor more immigration would probably not be willing to say in words.'How?'"
The idea is that we non-Native-Americans ought to see ourselves as immigrants and thus with interests allied to those who have not yet achieved immigration. If we say "keep out the new people," we're like the Native Americans who wouldn't have wanted us to get here. Since we want to be here, we should not identify with the Native American way of thinking, because it's not in our personal interest (if one is willing to look at the big picture and not rely on the permanence of victories already won).
Obviously, we are already here and we have what we have, so if you begin in the present, with things as they are, your argument works. We want the benefits we currently enjoy, so we could identify with the point of view ascribed to the Native Americans of not wanting to share with new people and the changes they may bring and even impose upon us.
"Sure looks like a young Chief Joseph to me."
Well, that's why I did an image search. I didn't want to be the person who looks at a photo of Chief Joseph and doesn't see that it's Chief Joseph.
Chief Joseph was a Nez Perce, but that photo by Edward Curtis is famous and not labeled Chief Joseph. If you say it looks like Chief Joseph, you may be seeing the Nez Perce at a high level of generality (which at some point is the old "They all look alike" perception).
Joseph lived from March 3, 1840 – September 21, 1904, and the photo was first published in 1899.
The realpolitik is that land belongs to those who can take and hold it. No human invention can change this. The American Indians violently displaced their predecessors and each other, then were displaced in their turn. People act as if there is some sort of base reality to "ownership". The only thing that matters is do you, right now, have access to more firepower than all the other people who want your land? If yes, you own it, if not, you won't for long.
What anti-immigration people fear is not that we've lost the technical ability, but the moral confidence to defend ourselves and our lands. And shitlibs will not rest until they have wrecked everything they purport to hold dear. Fight the racist, homophobic patriarchy by importing.........muslims? BAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!
So today he'd be a barista at a Starbucks.
The "Native Americans" probably wish they had done a better job of immigration control of those pesky white people.
Of course it would have been difficult for them to do it, as they had not invented any way of doing so. It's hard to do immigration control when you have no real written language, no technology - (not even the wheel!) and no shared cultural existence with your "countrymen."
Other than that, it should have been easy to repel the white invaders.
Today's immigration advocates are today's Pocahontas - welcoming into America those who will destroy their current culture and way of life. If you value the American culture of individualism, valuing of work, rule of law, playing by the rules, striving for wealth and religious freedom, then the multiculturalists and their pro-immigrant branch are out to eliminate you. Are you gonna let them get away with it?
Immigration is one thing; folk migration another.
What "Europe" is looking at is not just taking in a few refugees, but receiving a flood of millions - likely tens of millions - of people fleeing the Middle East war zone on top of the millions that have already come "in search of a better life" than what the blessings of Islam offers them.
Heckofajob, Barry!
I don't think it is "a high level of generality." This guy evidently was too young to be Joseph, but he was not just any Nez Perce. He is wearing the same ornaments as Chief Joseph, so he must also have been a "chief" and possibly of Joseph's family.
("Chief" in quotes because "chief" is a European notion that is quite foreign to American Indian traditions. And if I remember correctly, Joseph, though a most remarkable leader on the Nez Perces' exodus, was not a "chief" even in the "White Man's" sense.)
I can make memes, too.
"I find this with Ken Burns a lot. He is such a progressive. But when I watch his show (especially the one on prohibition) I learn the opposite lesson from the one he thought he was teaching."
Norman Lear : Archie Bunker. Talk about backfiring.
"I question whether those who are using this meme to push their policy preferences considered whether there was anything disrespectful or twisted about their appropriation."
Although no one can say for sure, I bet that Chief Joseph is preoccupied at the moment.
"A small town taking on three or four immigrant families is one thing, but taking on tens of thousands is quite another."
Numbers are important, but perhaps cultural compatibility and a willingness to assimilate even more so?
In most US-native interactions of the nineteenth century, I lean toward the Shit Happens interpretation of history, But the Nez Perce got a particularly raw deal.
Democrats have expressed the opinion that if enough Mexican immigrants stay in Texas, Texas will become a "blue state".
Those same Democrats believe millions of Muslims moving to Western Europe will leave Western Europe largely unchanged and think anyone suggesting as much is a racist.
Birkel- ha! You are right!
The idea is that we non-Native-Americans ought to see ourselves as immigrants
But we aren't immigrants...our ancestors were...exactly like the Indians....man did not evolve in North America.
The fact that our ancestors were immigrants imposes no moral obligation to accept immigrants today.
By the way, I am a native American. I was born here, which is what the term means.
@Tarrou
Somehow I ended up discussing land titles and their legitimacy with a friend of mine and he pointed out that in England land titles are derived from the Sovereign who ultimately owns all the land and dispenses it. (Don't know if that is true or not.) Anyway, he pointed out that we don't have that system here, so where does the legitimacy of the land title come from?
I told him that he thought to much. That if the King (or Queen) of England owned all the land in Britannia it was because their ancestors had conquered it through force of arms and that all land ownership is ultimately about force of arms. Anything else is just window dressing.
JAC: It's an analogy that goes against immigration, yet I assume everyone who posts these things is pro-immigration. So, what do you think I'm missing?
Althouse, I think you are saying exactly what JAC is saying.
The best known event in Nez Perce history is the flight of a section of the tribe from the reservation the tribe was being forced to live on. Led by Chief Joseph, part of the tribe migrated, 2900 people, walking north in disregard of the police and the US Army in a desperate attempt to reach the Canadian border beyond which life would be better for them.
"The Nez Perce were pursued by over 2,000 soldiers of the U.S. Army on an epic flight to freedom of more than 1,170 miles (1,880 km) across four states and multiple mountain ranges. The 800 Nez Perce warriors defeated or held off the pursuing troops in 18 battles, skirmishes, and engagements. More than 300 US soldiers and 1,000 Nez Perce (including women and children) were killed in these conflicts.
A majority of the surviving Nez Perce were finally forced to surrender on October 5, 1877, after the Battle of the Bear Paw Mountains in Montana, 40 miles (64 km) from the Canadian border."
So I think the Nez Perce would have supported the present emigrants from dhimmitude who are walking across Hungary - but would the Nez Perce have let them come live in their land had they had the power to exclude them? No, because the immigrant Europeans putting pressure on the Indians in the 1890's, were ultimately, all refugees from various forms of dhimmitude or exclusion. And the Nez Perce, unwillingly, lost their lands to those migrants.
And the Hispanic invaders lost the Southwest which they took from the Indians to invaders from northern Europe.
History is not a moral guidebook.
It sums it up nicely:
Cultures that are either unwilling or unable to prevent foreigners from migrating en masse into their homelands will find themselves wiped out, reduced from civilization to nothing more than a punch line in another culture's political rhetoric.
John Althouse Cohen said...
How?
Oh great. Just dive right in and start mocking native American speech patterns.
I seem to recall Lewis and Clark commenting in their journals that the Nez Percé (Pierced Nose Tribe) were the friendliest tribe and the most beautiful natives they had seen on the expedition. I think they even credited them with their survival.
A little off topic, sure...
A funny story was that they begged them to kill one of their horses, as the fish was giving them diarrhea so bad they wanted to kill themselves. They finally let them kill a horse and eat it, as they felt sorry for the poor bastards.
If we say "keep out the new people," we're like the Native Americans who wouldn't have wanted us to get here.
Yeah, and they had good reason for that!
Since we want to be here, we should not identify with the Native American way of thinking, because it's not in our personal interest
You seem to be overlooking my point about the deleterious consequences for Native Americans of Europeans coming to America, like disease and cultural displacement.
Libertardian sighting - Jeff @8:11 AM:
The truth is that no one owns a free country.
No, the truth, the rock-bottom fundamental truth, is what Tarrou stated above: land belongs to those who can take and hold it.
Though isn't it nice to see you right on board with our current ruling class, who also believe that the United States doesn't belong to American citizens.
If you don't believe that your economic activities should be restrained in any way by an ethic of obligation and responsibility to your fellow citizens, don't believe that they "own" the country along with you, in a meaningful sense, in a common enterprise, then don't be surprised when the very culture whose values you're invoking has become too weak to defend your freedom or protect your property rights. (Or, more precisely, selectively invoking. Respect for property rights doesn't exist in a cultural void.)
At that point your choice is "get really rich or get screwed" if your want your "rights" respected. Or, worse case, get yourself an army.
Predicted Jeff response:
Statist!...beep whirr...collectivist!...beep whirr...statist!...
John Althouse Cohen:
What option do you perceive, looking back these many hundreds of years, that you could have used to improve the lives of the people who were here before Europeans started immigrating?
It is wonderful that you can use your hindsight so effectively, now just give us your Alt-history that would be more peaceful.
I think the real answer is that "this kind of thing" is not an analogy, and is not intended to be. It is a "grounds" challenge. In short: European immigrants displaced Native Americans therefore they have no grounds to complain about being displaced themselves.*
That is they way these kind of things work. The point is never to argue a position (via analogy or otherwise). The point, always, is to delegitimize the opposition.
*It would be interesting to find out what Native Americans think of illegal immigration.
mikee: When the current round of emotional "arguments" fails to elicit surrender to the immigrants by the current occupants of the US and Europe, I predict the next round of progressive emotional appeals will follow the line of defaming those opposing immigration.
Next round? My dear, they've been screaming "nazi", and fining, and even jailing people, for expressing less than enthusiastic views of mass immigration, for years now in Europe. And in the U.S. we all know anyone not down with high-volume, non-stop immigration is a racist.
Unfortunately, the European history of the last centuries shows that the default decision of how to handle problematic populations, real or imagined, is to kill a lot of them.
No, human history since forever shows that. But right now, I see little evidence that Western nations, with minor exceptions, are going to do anything but lie down and take being overrun. If there was going to be any meaningful resistance it would have made inroads in the political sphere years ago, before things spiraled out of control. There is some electoral resistance, now, but I'm afraid it's a day late and a dollar (and a pound and a euro) short. (Letting off steam in comment sections doesn't count as resistance.)
Would it were otherwise, but I'm not seeing it.
So I predict the emotional argument of the progs actually will increase the chances and speed the use of genocidal anti-immigration, much to their delight, as it will prove them right for once.
Oh, they certainly are to blame for the already existing violence and any to come. (Though as of now it's mostly immigrant-on-native violence, not native-on-immigrant. Not that they'll admit that that's the case.) "Emotional arguments" aren't going to increase the chances of a conflagration; continuing to pour more immigrants into the tinder-box is going to increase the chances of a conflagration.
"Libertardian sighting - Jeff @8:11 AM:"
Libertarians believe strongly in property rights. More than Republicans do, actually.
What a bunch of fucking bullshit, Red Man. I'm a Son of the American Revolution. My forefathers created this fucking country, which country makes the laws that say who is and isn't illegal. Whatever laws the Indians had before the continent was conquered, settled and - with some notable exceptions -civilized by the whitey don't exist anymore except maybe in their little casinos. I'm anything but illegal and since my ancestors were here before the creation of this nation I'm far from being a fucking immigrant. I'm home fucking grown and this is my country.
I know the prevailing zeitgeist is to genuflect at American Indian history and culture. But consider how American Indian culture must have repressed individuality, thought, and innovation, that in the 12,000 years since they immigrated across the Bering Straits, they never domesticated a beast of burden or discovered or adopted the wheel. In 12,000 years why didn't any one of them say, "Hey, we killed this mother bison and I tamed one of its babies. If we slip this slave harness over it, I bet it can pull a lot more than a slave can.... or, Hey, I saw a rock rolling down a hill, if I build something shaped like the rock, I bet I could move more stuff by myself a lot easier, and make my life a lot better." No imagination at all.
Some tribes developed rudimentary metallurgical skills in the soft metals, and some developed rough stone masonry skills, but if you want to know what cave man life was like, just take a Tardis ride back to pre-Columbian America, and spend some time with the Creek, Sioux, Muscogee, etc., before the Europeans introduced domesticated horses and iron.
Henry: I think the real answer is that "this kind of thing" is not an analogy, and is not intended to be. It is a "grounds" challenge. In short: European immigrants displaced Native Americans therefore they have no grounds to complain about being displaced themselves.
True, as far as it goes, but the "grounds" challenge is really just a rationalization of a mental pathology. (Among whites. Among people moving in, it's rational use of propaganda in one's self-interest.) No one ever says that the Zulus or Comanches "had it coming" when they were subdued in their turn. (In fact, we're supposed to admire their brave conquering warrior cultures). It is only applied to Europeans. And it's insane. "Well, we conquered those people so we have to let these people conquer us." Insane.
*It would be interesting to find out what Native Americans think of illegal immigration.
Don't know, but historically SW Indian tribes sure didn't like Mexicans and Mexicans didn't like them.
And it's funny how Mexicans "stealing" the Indian lands that we in turn "stole" from Mexico never makes it into the progs' historical archives. Of course, a good prog thinks everyone in Mexico belongs to the Cosmic Race, unlike racist America, whereas in reality Mexico is a racially-stratified society with mostly Europeans on top and indios at the bottom.
That picture caption should read:
"Protect your borders"
(and stay away from discussing the huge stigma of being blue eyed on a reservation..icky.)
Manifest destiny and progressivism are really similar concepts.
America is a legal construct. Only citizens are natives.
It is self-evident that rate of immigration cannot exceed rate of assimilation and integration.
I wonder how pro-choice/abortion fits the pro-immigration model.
Anglelyne:
Thus the great divide that motivated strange alliances.
Did the Indigians have laws prohibiting or governing immigration? What were those laws, what did they say, and where were they written?
In this world, since the beginning of time, you either protect your land, stuff, life, or you don't have them anymore.
If that is the case the Amerinds are little better than squatters.
Post a Comment