A little perspective on our own times--they aren't unique. Interesting topic here of Enoch Powell, who gave one of the most incendiary speeches in British history regarding immigration, in the 1960's:
And here's a Dick Cavett episode with him:
Powell was more concerned with the issue of maintaining "Englishness" than economic issues. But you can identify a lot of the themes and rhetoric we see today.
The French also have a lot of cultural hangups about non-French in their midst, especially with outsiders introducing "non-French" foods, or using new words, phrases, or slang that would replace a proper French phrase. More than any place I have been there is a "We must protect the sanctity of our culture" vibe. We French women will not shave our pits! 😉
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
I haven't watched the video yet, but the Beatles made Get Back originally to parody Powell. Most of the more immigration forward lyrics were rewritten.
A little perspective on our own times--they aren't unique. Interesting topic here of Enoch Powell, who gave one of the most incendiary speeches in British history regarding immigration, in the 1960's:
And here's a Dick Cavett episode with him:
Powell was more concerned with the issue of maintaining "Englishness" than economic issues. But you can identify a lot of the themes and rhetoric we see today.
Are you scared of (insert ethnic group here) because you don't want their culture invading your land, or are you scared of them because they are taking your jobs and driving down wages?
I think you sound basically the same either way, so it's really hard to distinguish economic nativism from ethnic nativism. That's probably why Powell's rhetoric sounds so familiar.
I disagree with this. The different reasons lead to different policy, depending on the circumstances. @snarlcakes highlighted this in a different thread--some nations need immigration because of their birth demographics, to keep the economy humming. If it is the case that immigrants have a net positive economic effect and actually help keep jobs going and social welfare programs afloat, you would let a lot in under the economic rationale. Not so under the cultural one.
Are you scared of (insert ethnic group here) because you don’t want their culture invading your land, or are you scared of them because they are taking your jobs and driving down wages?
I think you sound basically the same either way, so it’s really hard to distinguish economic nativism from ethnic nativism. That’s probably why Powell’s rhetoric sounds so familiar.
I disagree with this. The different reasons lead to different policy, depending on the circumstances. @snarlcakes highlighted this in a different thread--some nations need immigration because of their birth demographics, to keep the economy humming. If it is the case that immigrants have a net positive economic effect and actually help keep jobs going and social welfare programs afloat, you would let a lot in under the economic rationale. Not so under the cultural one.
Are you scared of (insert ethnic group here) because you don’t want their culture invading your land, or are you scared of them because they are taking your jobs and driving down wages?
I think you sound basically the same either way, so it’s really hard to distinguish economic nativism from ethnic nativism. That’s probably why Powell’s rhetoric sounds so familiar.
That makes sense from a macroeconomic, dare I say, bourgeoisie, point of view, but I don't think that's how native blue-collar workers would see it.
I am pretty bujie I guessI disagree with this. The different reasons lead to different policy, depending on the circumstances. @snarlcakes highlighted this in a different thread--some nations need immigration because of their birth demographics, to keep the economy humming. If it is the case that immigrants have a net positive economic effect and actually help keep jobs going and social welfare programs afloat, you would let a lot in under the economic rationale. Not so under the cultural one.
Are you scared of (insert ethnic group here) because you don’t want their culture invading your land, or are you scared of them because they are taking your jobs and driving down wages?
I think you sound basically the same either way, so it’s really hard to distinguish economic nativism from ethnic nativism. That’s probably why Powell’s rhetoric sounds so familiar.
That makes sense from a macroeconomic, dare I say, bourgeoisie, point of view, but I don't think that's how native blue-collar workers would see it.
Are you scared of (insert ethnic group here) because you don’t want their culture invading your land, or are you scared of them because they are taking your jobs and driving down wages?
The key here is "scared." The explanations don't really address the root fear.
"The performative utterance" as he mentions in the Cavett clip, that those with a voice in power have sway over the opinions of the audience, and that they may proclaim whether or not outrage is an appropriate response- seems apt today for many cultural reasons, yes.
But there are big differences between immigration disrupting a unifying culture, as Enoch's point of view is, versus what Trump's version of immigration dissonance is based on- Namely, Trump has repeatedly claimed that millions of illegal immigrants are responsible for heinous crimes in America.
It is neither cultural nor economic.
Namely, Trump has repeatedly claimed that millions of illegal immigrants are responsible for heinous crimes in America.
Link?
The rest is history is so good.
Namely, Trump has repeatedly claimed that millions of illegal immigrants are responsible for heinous crimes in America.
Link?
I don't recall Trump saying a specific number but he called immigrants coming up from mexico rapists and murderers. And he didn't specify that he was accusing just a few but rather an ignorant generalization of all of them.
Latest Post: Anyone remember La Bamba restaurant Our newest member: Doug Beder Recent Posts Unread Posts
