@bradstevens I have no issue with what you said. My complaints are with people saying no one from Jamaica or Somolia should be let in
@bradstevens I have no issue with what you said. My complaints are with people saying no one from Jamaica or Somolia should be let in
Even if there are statistics that overwhelmingly illustrate they are a detriment to society? Can we have an honest discussion on comparing impacts of immigrants from different countries?
Bulk will have to sit this one out if it’s going to be an honest discussion…
Even if there are statistics that overwhelmingly illustrate they are a detriment to society? Can we have an honest discussion on comparing impacts of immigrants from different countries?
Or can't we recognize that it is the person we should concern ourselves with? We have a hell of a lot of Germans that came to America, the vast majority were fine additions. That didn't mean your average Colonel in the SS should have been let in, nor did his exclusion mean no German should have been let in.
We are about to let in a lot of White South Africans. What is their history regarding freedom? We should not blanket reject nor blanket admit them.
Even if there are statistics that overwhelmingly illustrate they are a detriment to society? Can we have an honest discussion on comparing impacts of immigrants from different countries?
Or can't we recognize that it is the person we should concern ourselves with? We have a hell of a lot of Germans that came to America, the vast majority were fine additions. That didn't mean your average Colonel in the SS should have been let in, nor did his exclusion mean no German should have been let in.
We are about to let in a lot of White South Africans. What is their history regarding freedom? We should not blanket reject nor blanket admit them.
I disagree. If we cannot effectively determine the individual qualities or lack thereof then the decision should be data driven, we have a lot of data that confirms they are criminal at a much higher rate than immigrants from other countries. If there is a bunch of data suggesting that white South Africans immigrants commit crime, or steal disproportionately, or profess allegiance to their former country, or take away freedoms per your concern, then don’t let them in either. I’ve posed the question previously, what is the reward for US citizens that makes it worth the risk to allow Somalians, Muslims & middle easterners immigration specifically?
1. More falafelEven if there are statistics that overwhelmingly illustrate they are a detriment to society? Can we have an honest discussion on comparing impacts of immigrants from different countries?
Or can't we recognize that it is the person we should concern ourselves with? We have a hell of a lot of Germans that came to America, the vast majority were fine additions. That didn't mean your average Colonel in the SS should have been let in, nor did his exclusion mean no German should have been let in.
We are about to let in a lot of White South Africans. What is their history regarding freedom? We should not blanket reject nor blanket admit them.
I disagree. If we cannot effectively determine the individual qualities or lack thereof then the decision should be data driven, we have a lot of data that confirms they are criminal at a much higher rate than immigrants from other countries. If there is a bunch of data suggesting that white South Africans immigrants commit crime, or steal disproportionately, or profess allegiance to their former country, or take away freedoms per your concern, then don’t let them in either. I’ve posed the question previously, what is the reward for US citizens that makes it worth the risk to allow Somalians, Muslims & middle easterners immigration specifically?
2.
Should we allow a person with these ideas in as a citizen? Give them a green card? Allow them to attend our universities?Even if there are statistics that overwhelmingly illustrate they are a detriment to society? Can we have an honest discussion on comparing impacts of immigrants from different countries?
Or can't we recognize that it is the person we should concern ourselves with? We have a hell of a lot of Germans that came to America, the vast majority were fine additions. That didn't mean your average Colonel in the SS should have been let in, nor did his exclusion mean no German should have been let in.
We are about to let in a lot of White South Africans. What is their history regarding freedom? We should not blanket reject nor blanket admit them.
https://twitter.com/sticksnstonez2/status/1999512721264439366
No, laughing because of her ignorance of history and her assertion that Burns presented a "soft Marxist reinterpretation".
The colonies definitely considered themselves to be independent of one another. Hence calling themselves "states". Laid the groundwork for the unwieldy articles of Confederation.
As to religious diversity in the 13 Colonies, it was extensive, with heated debates about government support or not. Puritan-dominated New England had established Congregational churches and clear and open intolerance for other faiths, expelling "heretic dissenters" such as Roger Williams who advocated the crazy notion of separation of church and state, The Church of England dominated the South, especially Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, but with more tolerance for Baptists and Presbyterians. The Middle Colonies were the most religiously diverse, attracting groups like Quakers (Pennsylvania, Delaware), Catholics (Maryland), Lutherans, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, and yes, Jewish communities.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
No, laughing because of her ignorance of history and her assertion that Burns presented a "soft Marxist reinterpretation".
The colonies definitely considered themselves to be independent of one another. Hence calling themselves "states". Laid the groundwork for the unwieldy articles of Confederation.
As to religious diversity in the 13 Colonies, it was extensive, with heated debates about government support or not. Puritan-dominated New England had established Congregational churches and clear and open intolerance for other faiths, expelling "heretic dissenters" such as Roger Williams who advocated the crazy notion of separation of church and state, The Church of England dominated the South, especially Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, but with more tolerance for Baptists and Presbyterians. The Middle Colonies were the most religiously diverse, attracting groups like Quakers (Pennsylvania, Delaware), Catholics (Maryland), Lutherans, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, and yes, Jewish communities.
LOL. Hmm, a best selling author on Marxism & America or a guy that writes articles (allegedly) shilling for big pharma & the CCP for a crappy magazine. Tough call. When you refer to white Christian Nationalists, do you split them into many diverse groups? 🤣
The colonies definitely considered themselves to be independent of one another. Hence calling themselves "states". Laid the groundwork for the unwieldy articles of Confederation.
The critique the tweeter offers is one of degree and worth discussing.
The piece she pulled has a woman historian saying these people who gathered were essentially from "different countries" and then ends with her saying they're all from the same "mother country." That's incongruent. It's especially so when one remembers that all these people gathering together at the Continental Congress thought of themselves first and foremost as Englishmen and Christians, specifically Protestants.
So the framing you give--that they thought of themselves as "independent of one another"--is irrelevant or dishonest to try to win an argument. No one is disputing that the colonists were driven by local rule--both vis a vis England and vis a vis any union between them after independence was won. The dispute is over just how different these American colonists really were by the late 18th century. Indeed, de Tocqueville, just 50 years later, writes that the various people of America--from Georgians all the way to those in Maine--shared more in common through their shared values, language, and religion than neighboring provinces in France separated by a river.
The notion that late 18th Century America, then, was so clearly a modern multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state--or that those fighting for it thought of it that way--might just be a later historical overlay by historians and peoples who wanted to justify/provide mythic origins to, modern America. Most look to the 1960s with the rise of the Civil Rights movement that gained steam once "diversity" became a political buzzword and legal ideology because one SCt justice wrote about it in a concurrence that ended up legitimizing affirmative action for half a century (read Bakke). Some historians were motivated by that. Now Powell and those who wanted to keep affirmative action were not "soft Marxists" or historical revisionists, but the historians who followed with their reinterpretations? I'm guessing many actually were (which doesn't make their analysis wrong, but we'd be burying our heads in the sand if we didn't acknowledge it).
In other words, it's tough to talk about the American Revolution (or any significant event in American history) without also talking about the history of how American's have interpreted the American Revolution and the current political motivations of those commenting on it.
Latest Post: Iran War Has Started Our newest member: Zachary Greene Recent Posts Unread Posts
