"A Senator Just Unapologetically Declared the U.S. a White Homeland"

[donbosco]

Even in colonial times Central Americans -- Guatemalans, Hondurans, Salvadorans, Costa Ricans in particular (going back that far you could even throw in folks from Chiapas, Mexico) there have been sufficient regional and even local differences to foster animosities. Ever wonder why there isn't a nation called Central America? They tried with the United Provinces of Central America and it just didn't hold together. Demographically AND Geographically the nations are different enough to breed both mild as well as vociferous disagreements.

From the north, Mexicans, at least above Chiapas, have also tended to laud a good deal, from the nationalism born of a successful ealy 20th century revolution that created from a despotic dictatorship a modern nation state to a simple and general "WE ARE A GIGANTIC COUNTRY COMPARED TO YOU" line of thinking.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Ok. Not gonna respond to the rest of it huh?

Your points are pretty muddled but I'll try my best. Once again, its a nativist speech much more than a white nationalist speech. So yes, portions of that speech were directed at native born Americans of any skin shade.

I'm guessing he didn't discuss other accomplishments because they weren't at the same level. Do you really want him to say it was an American that invented the telephone and an American that invented elevator brakes? It was an American that was the first to fly solo across the Atlantic and a different American who scored the most points in an NBA career? It was an American who split the atom and an American who invented peanut butter.? And I'm not saying those weren't incredible accomplishments that none of us have approached but if you are listing the 5-10 greatest American achievements to illustrate how great we are, we are still waiting for the POC's entry which will come at some point.

I am happy to acknowledge that a speech like that could appeal to racists. Can you acknowledge that it could also appeal to non-racists who either don't like immigrants or just don't want to hear how bad America has been all the time?

 

[rodoheel]

Your points are pretty muddled but I'll try my best. Once again, its a nativist speech much more than a white nationalist speech. So yes, portions of that speech were directed at native born Americans of any skin shade.

I'm guessing he didn't discuss other accomplishments because they weren't at the same level. Do you really want him to say it was an American that invented the telephone and an American that invented elevator brakes? It was an American that was the first to fly solo across the Atlantic and a different American who scored the most points in an NBA career? It was an American who split the atom and an American who invented peanut butter.? And I'm not saying those weren't incredible accomplishments that none of us have approached but if you are listing the 5-10 greatest American achievements to illustrate how great we are, we are still waiting for the POC's entry which will come at some point.

I am happy to acknowledge that a speech like that could appeal to racists. Can you acknowledge that it could also appeal to non-racists who either don't like immigrants or just don't want to hear how bad America has been all the time?

What I'm asking you is if the speech was intended to be about and appeal to native-born Americans of all races and religions, why the speech had to reference "European Christians" and their descendants multiple times without making specific reference to any other ethnic group or religion? Consider the line of the speech that even you have acknowledged is pretty problematic:

We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith

That line could have easily been:

We Americans are the sons and daughters of the pilgrims who crossed oceans to tame a new world with their faith, courage, and indomitable spirit

That change would make the speech far more inclusive of non-white, non-Christian nativists, but it would make it a lot less white nationalist and/or Christian nationalist. Again, you can pretend if you want that it's just a coincidence that the speech said the former and not the latter; but I'm fairly confident it's not.

I agree that there are parts of the speech that would appeal to the handful of hypothetical people you are referencing who are solely nativist but could not be fairly described as white nationalists, or racists, or whatever. But if the speech was truly meant to appeal to nativists of all races and religions it would and could have been drafted that way. It could have easily referenced "the descendants of slaves who shook off their chains and went to work building the American dream alongside their fellow countrymen" or "the people of all faiths and backgrounds who were drawn by this uniquely American spirit to tame the frontier" but it didn't do those things. Because the entire point of the speech is to hail America as the pinnacle of all civilization and to give responsibility for building that civilization solely to European Christians. That's why they are explicitly mentioned, and no one else is.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

What I'm asking you is if the speech was intended to be about and appeal to native-born Americans of all races and religions, why the speech had to reference "European Christians" and their descendants multiple times without making specific reference to any other ethnic group or religion? Consider the line of the speech that even you have acknowledged is pretty problematic:

We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith

That line could have easily been:

We Americans are the sons and daughters of the pilgrims who crossed oceans to tame a new world with their faith, courage, and indomitable spirit

That change would make the speech far more inclusive of non-white, non-Christian nativists, but it would make it a lot less white nationalist and/or Christian nationalist. Again, you can pretend if you want that it's just a coincidence that the speech said the former and not the latter; but I'm fairly confident it's not.

I agree that there are parts of the speech that would appeal to the handful of hypothetical people you are referencing who are solely nativist but could not be fairly described as white nationalists, or racists, or whatever. But if the speech was truly meant to appeal to nativists of all races and religions it would and could have been drafted that way. It could have easily referenced "the descendants of slaves who shook off their chains and went to work building the American dream alongside their fellow countrymen" or "the people of all faiths and backgrounds who were drawn by this uniquely American spirit to tame the frontier" but it didn't do those things. Because the entire point of the speech is to hail America as the pinnacle of all civilization and to give responsibility for building that civilization solely to European Christians. That's why they are explicitly mentioned, and no one else is.

I think I have mentioned twice that the European line is the most problematic of the speech. It is one line. You guys complain about how I nitpick while ignoring the whole. I'm not clear if you are the pot or the kettle.

 

[aGDevil2k]

There is indeed a good deal of historical animosities streaming back and forth between Central Americans and Mexicans...AND between Central Americans for that matter as well as between different demographic groups within each country. Regionalism plays a role but so too does ethnicity, even linguistics.

All of that said, @rodoheel destroyed it above. It appears that @gtyellowjacket is being deliberately obtuse in his defense of Schmitt's remarks. It is kind of a waste of time but just the same a good reminder of the games that Rightists play.

Deliberately obtuse is his byline

 

[rodoheel]

I think I have mentioned twice that the European line is the most problematic of the speech. It is one line. You guys complain about how I nitpick while ignoring the whole. I'm not clear if you are the pot or the kettle.

That is one line in the speech - but it's not the only mention of Europe of Christians, and there are numerous mentions to "Western civilization" or "the West" which are meant to evoke the same thing.

But anyway, feel free to continue along your merry blissful way where those mentions of European Christians are just a big coincidence and have nothing to do with the point of the speech as a whole.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

That is one line in the speech - but it's not the only mention of Europe of Christians, and there are numerous mentions to "Western civilization" or "the West" which are meant to evoke the same thing.

But anyway, feel free to continue along your merry blissful way where those mentions of European Christians are just a big coincidence and have nothing to do with the point of the speech as a whole.

I really disagree. I think the West in his speech is inclusive of all native born Americans no matter the color. Are you now claiming that only white Americans should be considered part of western civilization? Your arguments are a little all over the place.

 

[lawtig02]

I really disagree. I think the West in his speech is inclusive of all native born Americans no matter the color. Are you now claiming that only white Americans should be considered part of western civilization? Your arguments are a little all over the place.

Huh? Rodo is not saying that. Schmitt is.

 

[rodoheel]

I really disagree. I think the West in his speech is inclusive of all native born Americans no matter the color. Are you now claiming that only white Americans should be considered part of western civilization? Your arguments are a little all over the place.

This is so obviously not what I am saying that I can only assume you're trolling at this point

 

[4thgenheel]

I really disagree. I think the West in his speech is inclusive of all native born Americans no matter the color. Are you now claiming that only white Americans should be considered part of western civilization? Your arguments are a little all over the place.

 

[Healing]

Can’t believe anyone ever, ever, gives gt the benefit of the doubt.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Huh? Rodo is not saying that. Schmitt is.

Plenty of American people of color in that crowd. I would wager that if you ask them if they thought they were part of western civilization, they would look at you like you're an idiot and then say yes of course. I would assume it would be the same for just about any American, even the ones not in that crowd.

 

[billybobblockhead]

Schmitt won his most recent election 55-42. He can pretty much say anything he wants to, no matter how reprehensible or bigoted it is, because he's not gonna get voted out.

 

[4thgenheel]

Plenty of American people of color in that crowd. I would wager that if you ask them if they thought they were part of western civilization, they would look at you like you're an idiot and then say yes of course. I would assume it would be the same for just about any American, even the ones not in that crowd.