Comparisons between illegal immigrants and colonists...

[MellowDem]

besides being pretty inane, are also counterproductive. In fact, any talking point that pushes the idea that the native Americans are "more native" than anyone else is just about as cogent a talking point as saying that might makes right. I understand the basic idea of whoever gets to a place first, suddenly "owns" it. But I think it's pretty archaic and doesn't apply to the modern world anymore, much less liberal ideas of humanity.

The first "natives" were displaced by later "natives" (the ol' might makes right). Indeed, I doubt there are any true "natives" anywhere in the entire world. But the whole idea of nativism is embraced by the right. The idea of being more "native" was pushed during the last campaign, with the "Real American" slogans. It's another way to divide "us" from "them". Retorting with the now tired talking point of native Americans is just playing their game of "purity". And the comparison with colonists/invaders also fits right in with the right's current view of illegal immigration. As the right believes, they are not immigrants, they are invaders here to create their own society and push out ours!

I have tried thinking of another comparison - since people seem so desperate to find one - to today's illegal immigration situation, but it's a very modern problem in the context of the US. There has always been illegal immigration, but never in such numbers or with the modern context of population and limited resources for the US. The only real comparison to look at is the issue of illegal immigration in other nations around the world.

The whole idea of "nativism" is incredibly archaic and conservative. It calls back to a time of "might makes right", tribalism, and stands in direct contradiction to liberal ideas of inclusiveness and equality. I think we should fight this idea not with tit-for-tats of who is more "native", which just reinforces the importance of being "native", but rather from the stance that we are all "natives" or we are all "immigrants". In the context of nation-states in which we all live, there are of course immigrants and natives in reality. But in terms of how we view and treat others, it's better to think in terms of humanity.

[Demeter]

1. "Illegal" is a Social Construct

There are no boundaries in nature save those upheld by physical limitations or social conventions.

[MellowDem]

5. Very true...

but I'm not so naive as to think the world is quite ready yet for open borders or a one world government. I think that is an ideal thing to strive towards.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Yes, but so are "thief" and "murderer" so that's not a terribly strong point.

Appeals to what is and isn't natural are never a good way to settle debate about how we should be living - I *like* fire and the wheel! Whether or not a boundary is just a social convention is nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it's a good idea or not.

[Demeter]

16. Theft and Murder Have Been Considered beyond the Pale since before recorded history

"Illegal" is the product of the economics of scarcity.

[Lance_Boyle]

18. Societies only have law because of material scarcity?

On what planet?

Theft and murder have *not* always been considered "beyond the pale." Taking from outgroups has been (and is) routinely encouraged among many, many societies. Dispensing with members of outgroups entirely is not universally viewed as bad. Have you been taking sociology classes from poets, or what?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Can you clarify that?

Are you using "illegal" as a sarcastic abbreviation for "illegal immigrant" - in which case yes, I agree with you that as far as I know (which isn't very far; I'm a mathematician, not a historian) the notion of formal immigration control is a relatively culturally specific one; on the other hand, the world's population is immeasurably higher now than it has ever been before, and the idea of e.g. women voting is an even newer one.

If you literally mean that the idea of "illegality" is a new one then I think you're simply wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. " The whole idea of "nativism" is incredibly archaic and conservative."

Yet here you are, worried about those unworthy illegal immigrants "taking our resources."

Go figure.

[MellowDem]

6. When did I say that? Go figure. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. "It's a very modern problem"

"...never in such numbers or with the modern context of population and limited resources for the US."

:shrug:

[MellowDem]

12. Which is why it is considered a problem...

we've always had illegal immigration, but it wasn't really an issue until today for a reason. Immigration and the tensions associated with it often have to do with limited resources and the competition for them. The more population, the more competition and the more tension. Throw in a bad economy, and you have a "problem".

[EFerrari]

3. The idea that Native Americans were here first and own the land is a satire

of hypocrites people like Brewer who appeals to nationalism and racism and ownership.

As I said in another post, the idea that someone owns the Earth is a European one, not a Native American one, and its introduction should be a clue that the statement is being made tongue in cheek.

[Dappleganger]

4. What people don't understand...

is that most NA's were open to sharing the land with people who respected their culture and autonomy.

[MellowDem]

9. I understand that, but many do not...

I like satire as a form of humor, but as a way to seriously debate opposing viewpoints, it doesn't always work so well. I think it can point out the hypocrisy just fine, but it's not really hypocrisy if the other side believes that might really does make right, which is what we are fighting against.

As for trying to make this some sort of "European only" phenomena, it's not. There were whole Empires of native Americans who believed they owned the Earth, conquered and enslaved other tribes, etc. etc. Trying to make it a "whites are uniquely evil" thing really doesn't help either, though that line of simple, racialized thinking is very familiar on the right.

[EFerrari]

11. You keep generalizing into areas that 'way overshoot the point here.

There is no "whites are uniquely evil" message in this instance. There is no claim to some fake "native purity", either.

[MellowDem]

14. Your false claims of "European ideas"...

are either based on ignorance, some weird idea of the "noble savage", or bigotry.

I don't think everyone on here is claiming some fake natve purity, but some on here do, or at least argue about illegal immigration in terms of who is more native, which has to do with "native purity". And many on the right do as well, so it makes sense to discuss it.

[EFerrari]

17. Yes, of the two groups involved in the situation

the idea that you own the land is European, not American. That's a concept you can learn in your first semester of Native American studies, comparative cultural anthropology or even comp lit. depending on your focus.

Everything is not everything. The Fox, "both sides do it" doesn't work in this instance. It really is laughably hypocritical for Brewer et all to keep pushing the "breaking into our home" baloney.

[MellowDem]

19. It's not European...

Europeans held different ideas about land ownership than hunter-gatherer tribes they met in the New World, but that has been the case between settled civilizations and hunter-gatherers since the dawn of civilization. The idea of land ownership was not created by Europeans nor is uniquely European. Even hunter-gatherer societies had notions of land tenure, but not the formal ideas of land ownership that Europe had at that time. Among the native American Empires, though, land ownership was practiced, which makes sense, considering the heirarchical structure and permanent settlements of such societies.

To make it seem like it is a European vs native American idea is just not true. It's more like settled civilization vs. migratory hunter-gatherers.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Legitimacy comes from time.

My view, FWIW, is that legitimacy of ownership comes from time. If I kill you and take your land, my ownership is not legitimate. My son's (at the developmental stage of societies where this is common, it's usually "son" rather than "child", although not always) ownership will be a bit more legitimate, his son's still more so, and so on; in a century or two my descendants will have a complete right to that bit of land, and yours none whatsoever, even though I stole it from you.

If someone purchases or is given land legitmately, of course, they have as much or as little legitimacy as the person who they got it from did.


Incidentally, semantically "native" comes from "born there".

[madamesilverspurs]

13. My Mayflower antecedents

have come up in a number of recent public conversations about the events in Arizona. The irony is a bit too strong to resist, that someone whose family has been here for a few hundred years should feel entitled to be distrusting of those whose families have been here for thousands of years.


-

[MellowDem]

15. I don't really see the irony...

considering the native Americans were wary of Europeans. Really, where your family is "from" for however long really doesn't entitle a person to anything, or at least is shouldn't. That mindset is the problem.