6 ms·

"We just want to preserve our culture" is the loudest racial dog-whistle I know. It's been around since Jim Crow and it looks like it's not going away any time

"We just want to preserve our culture" is the loudest racial dog-whistle I know. It's been around since Jim Crow and it looks like it's not going away any time soon.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Just because something can be a racial dog-whistle doesn't mean that it's wrong or that it's always motivated by racism. I'm a Hispanic-American, the first generation born in America, and I'll be casting my ballot for Mr. Trump. Here's my reasoning. Immigration has to be at levels, under conditions, and from cultures that are conducive to assimilation. I don't think we have that today, and what's being proposed by the other side is a big step in the wrong direction. Immigration to America works when it's a melting pot. When people are coming to work hard and to earn their own way, not to collect on generous benefits that would make them rich in their home country (edit:[1]). There was a time when a large percent of immigrants went home after a few years because they weren't cut out for America. America does not need millions of low-skill migrants; we already have more low-skilled people than our economy seems to be able to accommodate. Immigration must be for the benefit of the American people, not out of any sense of fairness or duty to potential migrants. I'm not trying to convince you of my views here, just show you that it's not as simple as calling the other side a bunch of bigots. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to preserve your culture or to defend the interests of your nation. [1] Clarifying in response to rconti below: I'm not saying that most immigrants are necessarily coming with the express intent on cashing in welfare checks. I think a welfare state is just not as capable of successfully integrating immigrants the way America has been able to in the past. I suspect generational poverty among descendants of immigrants since 1965 vs. descendants of those who came in the early 20th century and prior would show that (measuring one, two, three, and four generations out). I could be wrong and even if the statistics are on my side, there's so many confounding factors that I'd hesitate to declare victory on that basis.
- cariaso 10y ago
  Every generation of new immigrants has always pushed hard to close the door behind them. Welcome to the club.
- msie 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure you'll be regretting that vote. Edit: If Trump has attacked an American-born judge of Mexican heritage then I'm sure you're next.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    So I should vote for the other side that reflexively calls me racist and bigoted whenever I don't agree with them? The side that takes innocent cops that were defending their lives and ruins their careers and lives, so that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can advance theirs? The side that has forced colleges to lower the standard of evidence in college sexual assault cases, so young men can have their lives ruined by an accusation? The side that has invented a gender wage gap to sow division? The side that arranged to carry a massive banner at the front of the gay pride parade in NYC this weekend, saying "Republican Hate Kills"? The side that will try to destroy my career if I donate to the wrong political cause? Look, I can make your side look like demons too. The attack on the judge was a bad move and poorly argued. Instead of "he's Mexican and I want to build a wall", he could have argued the defensible "he's associated himself with some Hispanic-American political groups that have political goals that I represent a huge threat to" (or really, just have left it alone). I would never join an organization called "La Raza", which literally means "The Race"; the thought is appalling to me, as it should be to you. It was appalling to Cesar Chavez, the left-wing Mexican-American civil rights activist, when they were first founded. Trump has been in the public spotlight for decades, runs major companies with many employees, and no one ever thought to call him racist or accuse him of discrimination until he said he wanted to build a wall. ================= Hackernews is rate-limiting me, here's my response to maxerickson: ================= I stand corrected. Here are the Google search results for "Donald Trump racist" up to 2008, before his criticism of Obama got the word thrown around a ton. Almost everything comes from one guy's tell-all-type memoir (aka tabloid crap) and the rest speaks for itself as political opportunism. If anything, it actually helps prove my broader point about it being thrown around ridiculously. https://www.google.com/#q=donald+trump+racist&tbs=cdr:1,cd_max:12/31/2007&start=0 https://www.google.com/#q=donald+trump+racist&tbs=cdr:1,cd_m...
    - maxerickson 10y ago
- rconti 10y ago
  As long as you're confident that, in fact, "these immigrants these days" aren't coming to the US to work any more, the same way "these kids these days" just want to play video games and type in emoji. From where I sit, it seems that you're buying into a cultural narrative that has no data to support it. Not looking for an argument, just saying you might want to check your assumptions.
- foxylad 10y ago
  You're right racial comments are not necessarily wrong, but I think you're wrong to vote for Trump. Just to avoid using very loaded words like "racist", I'm going to say I think we're all "culturist" to varying extents, which means we like people culturally like ourselves. We use race (or sometimes religion) as a proxy for this, because it's simpler - note that it tends to be the less articulate who do this. But actually it's having the same values, the same social habits and ceremonies and the same language to share them that binds us. Put another way, a black person who absorbs enough white culture is acceptable enough to be voted president; and a white person who absorbs black culture (Eminem) is viewed with suspicion by many white people. It's not the colour - it's the culture. If you and I were not culturists, we'd probably look at immigration and say that there was an optimal size for a society inhabiting a particular part of the world, and we'd welcome people until we hit the limit. As with any population, some of those people would be a net drain on our society, and some would be a net asset. In fact it's a lot better than that - numerous studies have found that immigrants tend on average to be far more productive than the population they are joining, and it makes perfect sense because by definition they had the vision, energy and resources to leave their old lives behind. I'm guessing you are a prime example of this. And it is this exact effect that made the US such a powerhouse - in the early 1900s they absorbed millions of the worlds brightest and best who then built the miracle that was 1950/60s America. Then they started putting the breaks on immigration, and... oh dear, the economy is faltering! Why ever could that be? So it's generally accepted that immigration is not actually a serious problem, and it is only the most culturist and least successful members of our society who think it is because it gives them a convenient excuse for their circumstances. And any politician that tries to whip up support by shouting "immigrants are causing all our problems" automatically loses my respect because the argument is a fallacy, and they know it, but it's the oldest trick in the book to get the less fortunate to support you. History is littered with politicians who used immigrants as scapegoats, and in every case it did not go well. Do you really want to vote for someone using the same tactics that Fascists used to get into power? And even if you decide immigration is a big enough issue for you, are you sure you want to support all his other policies? You really want to waste huge amounts of your country's resources building a totally ineffective wall? You really want to start profiling large segments of the population - a favourite tool of the most repressive regimes in history? And do you really want the US military to be at the whim of someone who loses his temper when a minor court case goes against him? You're going to vote for someone who promises he's squeaky clean but is the only candidate to refuse to release his tax records? Please use (or don't use) your vote wisely.
force_reboot 10y ago
A good portion of mainstream American and European liberals would consider Jewish culture to be a real thing that deserves preserving, even while they claim that saying the same thing about any other culture or identity is racist
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- x5n1 10y ago
  What is Jewish culture? Jews are as diverse a group as any other group. Jewish culture includes everything from religious nut jobs, to academia, to gay rights, to you name it. Jews are a extremely wide spectrum of opinion. Probably all spectrum of opinion is covered by Jews. So yeah let's preserve that. Let's preserve my Jewish culture, though I am not a Jew I share the same culture of all human opinions.
redthrowaway 10y ago
This implies there is no such thing as a culture worth saving, and that the only reason someone might find value in it is because of racism. Not coincidentally, this is the globalist message. All people are the same, the only thing that matters is economic growth, and nation-states will soon be a thing of the past. Turns out, normal people have something to say about that.
- disgruntledphd2 10y ago
  I think the nationalism vs globalism framing is correct, but somehow misleading. I love the cultures of countries, but am a globalist. I don't like that capital is far more global and well-treated than labour is, but at least the EU made some strides in the direction of more movement for people. However, while in principle the EU is great (my only problem is that it isn't globalist enough), the practicalities seem to have been co-opted by international capital. For instance, law-making powers are still reserved to the Commissioners. Politicians who never have to run for elections again are not the right people to put in such a role, and yet, that's what happens. The Council of Ministers are even worse. All the national governments get together, fight, make a decision that the EU then implements, then each national government goes home and blames the EU for it. Meanwhile, things that would actually make life better for the people of the EU (roaming charges are a good example) are held up for years because they damage sets of national interests. Don't even get me started on the Euro. On the other hand, the EU means that western europe and some of the rest has been in relative peace for over sixty years now, and there is definitely more of a sense of common identity across the countries, which is brilliant. We've changed from young men dying in the muck to old men arguing over idiocies, and while that's not a perfect change, its still better than the alternatives. But the forces of maximising profit by shifting work to lower-cost countries are the real causes of the hollowing-out of much of the UK outside London. This, along with perceived loss of identity, causes those people to lose faith in all of the internationalist movements which are backed by capital, and vote Leave.
johnbm 10y ago
Funny, "Dog-whistle" is the loudest dog-whistle I know, for strawmanning. "We all know what you really mean, wink wink, nod nod, and therefor you are a bigot / racist / etc."
rukittenme 10y ago
Are you the same type of person who accuses people of cultural appropriation? Does it exist or not? Is culture something worth cherishing and preserving and experiencing or is it too tribal for the modern era? I had a great trip overseas recently. I loved being in a different place and in a different culture. I hope the people of that place continue their traditions because I want others to experience it as well. I want my own culture to continue, as horrible as that might sound. It's not perfect, and its always changing for better or worse, but its my culture and I think there's value in its existence.
- mc32 10y ago
  I think the way the recipe goes is something like this: any non-dominant culture is unique and worth preserving (however, it may not be appropriated by outsiders) and any dominant culture is not only oppressive by nature but not worth preserving (should be diluted) except where its philosophy is to prefer non-dominant culture --and it may be appropriated, most naturally.
sigmaml 10y ago
Do you have a definition of culture? The argument for, or against, preserving it depends heavily on that definition. I am from India. Millennia of foreign trade and coexistence with other religions yet preserved a cultural identity within most subgroups of Hinduism. This cultural identity relates to seasonal festivals, religious festivals, ceremonies related to events of life (such as birth of a child and marriage), etc. During the last three decades, or so, we have been experiencing a new wave of globalisation. It has resulted in a growing trend of identity and relationships getting determined solely based on economic factors. This relentless drive for financial growth has largely relegated the cultural legacy to the fringes. One of the most visible social consequences is that of alienation. Common gatherings and celebrations are rare except in the cases of two or three high-profile festivals. Neighbours do not know one another; they do not talk to one another except for a mechanical "Hello"; they do not have a few moments for one another's needs. Culturally, these people have - if at all - erred on the side of being "nosy", not alien. But, that is the new reality. Similarly, those parts of culture that relate to the softer or the subtler aspects of Nature are dying a rapid death. Examples include the harvest festival (makara sankranti) and celebrating Sun (ratha saptami). A natural consequence of this is that people are losing touch with Nature, an appreciation for it, and spend most of their time indoors. There is little to no physical exercise outdoors. It can be argued that gyms and other exercise regimen should be followed, etc. However, I see more value in having a culture that seamlessly integrates them into everyday life. Finally, I am at a loss to understand how exactly this relates to racism. Any such connotations have to be tacked on; they are not intrinsic to culture.
venomsnake 10y ago
I love my country[1] Europe which is secular, hedonistic, sexually liberated and with gender equality. I want to preserve it that way. [1] I do think of it that way.

"We just want to preserve our culture" is the loudest racial dog-whistle I know. It's been around since Jim Crow and it looks like it's not going away any time soon.

marcoperaza 10y ago

Just because something can be a racial dog-whistle doesn't mean that it's wrong or that it's always motivated by racism. I'm a Hispanic-American, the first generation born in America, and I'll be casting my ballot for Mr. Trump. Here's my reasoning. Immigration has to be at levels, under conditions, and from cultures that are conducive to assimilation. I don't think we have that today, and what's being proposed by the other side is a big step in the wrong direction. Immigration to America works when it's a melting pot. When people are coming to work hard and to earn their own way, not to collect on generous benefits that would make them rich in their home country (edit:[1]). There was a time when a large percent of immigrants went home after a few years because they weren't cut out for America. America does not need millions of low-skill migrants; we already have more low-skilled people than our economy seems to be able to accommodate. Immigration must be for the benefit of the American people, not out of any sense of fairness or duty to potential migrants. I'm not trying to convince you of my views here, just show you that it's not as simple as calling the other side a bunch of bigots. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to preserve your culture or to defend the interests of your nation. [1] Clarifying in response to rconti below: I'm not saying that most immigrants are necessarily coming with the express intent on cashing in welfare checks. I think a welfare state is just not as capable of successfully integrating immigrants the way America has been able to in the past. I suspect generational poverty among descendants of immigrants since 1965 vs. descendants of those who came in the early 20th century and prior would show that (measuring one, two, three, and four generations out). I could be wrong and even if the statistics are on my side, there's so many confounding factors that I'd hesitate to declare victory on that basis.

cariaso 10y ago
Every generation of new immigrants has always pushed hard to close the door behind them. Welcome to the club.
msie 10y ago
I'm pretty sure you'll be regretting that vote. Edit: If Trump has attacked an American-born judge of Mexican heritage then I'm sure you're next.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  So I should vote for the other side that reflexively calls me racist and bigoted whenever I don't agree with them? The side that takes innocent cops that were defending their lives and ruins their careers and lives, so that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can advance theirs? The side that has forced colleges to lower the standard of evidence in college sexual assault cases, so young men can have their lives ruined by an accusation? The side that has invented a gender wage gap to sow division? The side that arranged to carry a massive banner at the front of the gay pride parade in NYC this weekend, saying "Republican Hate Kills"? The side that will try to destroy my career if I donate to the wrong political cause? Look, I can make your side look like demons too. The attack on the judge was a bad move and poorly argued. Instead of "he's Mexican and I want to build a wall", he could have argued the defensible "he's associated himself with some Hispanic-American political groups that have political goals that I represent a huge threat to" (or really, just have left it alone). I would never join an organization called "La Raza", which literally means "The Race"; the thought is appalling to me, as it should be to you. It was appalling to Cesar Chavez, the left-wing Mexican-American civil rights activist, when they were first founded. Trump has been in the public spotlight for decades, runs major companies with many employees, and no one ever thought to call him racist or accuse him of discrimination until he said he wanted to build a wall. ================= Hackernews is rate-limiting me, here's my response to maxerickson: ================= I stand corrected. Here are the Google search results for "Donald Trump racist" up to 2008, before his criticism of Obama got the word thrown around a ton. Almost everything comes from one guy's tell-all-type memoir (aka tabloid crap) and the rest speaks for itself as political opportunism. If anything, it actually helps prove my broader point about it being thrown around ridiculously. https://www.google.com/#q=donald+trump+racist&tbs=cdr:1,cd_max:12/31/2007&start=0 https://www.google.com/#q=donald+trump+racist&tbs=cdr:1,cd_m...
  - maxerickson 10y ago
rconti 10y ago
As long as you're confident that, in fact, "these immigrants these days" aren't coming to the US to work any more, the same way "these kids these days" just want to play video games and type in emoji. From where I sit, it seems that you're buying into a cultural narrative that has no data to support it. Not looking for an argument, just saying you might want to check your assumptions.
foxylad 10y ago
You're right racial comments are not necessarily wrong, but I think you're wrong to vote for Trump. Just to avoid using very loaded words like "racist", I'm going to say I think we're all "culturist" to varying extents, which means we like people culturally like ourselves. We use race (or sometimes religion) as a proxy for this, because it's simpler - note that it tends to be the less articulate who do this. But actually it's having the same values, the same social habits and ceremonies and the same language to share them that binds us. Put another way, a black person who absorbs enough white culture is acceptable enough to be voted president; and a white person who absorbs black culture (Eminem) is viewed with suspicion by many white people. It's not the colour - it's the culture. If you and I were not culturists, we'd probably look at immigration and say that there was an optimal size for a society inhabiting a particular part of the world, and we'd welcome people until we hit the limit. As with any population, some of those people would be a net drain on our society, and some would be a net asset. In fact it's a lot better than that - numerous studies have found that immigrants tend on average to be far more productive than the population they are joining, and it makes perfect sense because by definition they had the vision, energy and resources to leave their old lives behind. I'm guessing you are a prime example of this. And it is this exact effect that made the US such a powerhouse - in the early 1900s they absorbed millions of the worlds brightest and best who then built the miracle that was 1950/60s America. Then they started putting the breaks on immigration, and... oh dear, the economy is faltering! Why ever could that be? So it's generally accepted that immigration is not actually a serious problem, and it is only the most culturist and least successful members of our society who think it is because it gives them a convenient excuse for their circumstances. And any politician that tries to whip up support by shouting "immigrants are causing all our problems" automatically loses my respect because the argument is a fallacy, and they know it, but it's the oldest trick in the book to get the less fortunate to support you. History is littered with politicians who used immigrants as scapegoats, and in every case it did not go well. Do you really want to vote for someone using the same tactics that Fascists used to get into power? And even if you decide immigration is a big enough issue for you, are you sure you want to support all his other policies? You really want to waste huge amounts of your country's resources building a totally ineffective wall? You really want to start profiling large segments of the population - a favourite tool of the most repressive regimes in history? And do you really want the US military to be at the whim of someone who loses his temper when a minor court case goes against him? You're going to vote for someone who promises he's squeaky clean but is the only candidate to refuse to release his tax records? Please use (or don't use) your vote wisely.

force_reboot 10y ago

A good portion of mainstream American and European liberals would consider Jewish culture to be a real thing that deserves preserving, even while they claim that saying the same thing about any other culture or identity is racist

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
x5n1 10y ago
What is Jewish culture? Jews are as diverse a group as any other group. Jewish culture includes everything from religious nut jobs, to academia, to gay rights, to you name it. Jews are a extremely wide spectrum of opinion. Probably all spectrum of opinion is covered by Jews. So yeah let's preserve that. Let's preserve my Jewish culture, though I am not a Jew I share the same culture of all human opinions.

redthrowaway 10y ago

This implies there is no such thing as a culture worth saving, and that the only reason someone might find value in it is because of racism. Not coincidentally, this is the globalist message. All people are the same, the only thing that matters is economic growth, and nation-states will soon be a thing of the past. Turns out, normal people have something to say about that.

disgruntledphd2 10y ago
I think the nationalism vs globalism framing is correct, but somehow misleading. I love the cultures of countries, but am a globalist. I don't like that capital is far more global and well-treated than labour is, but at least the EU made some strides in the direction of more movement for people. However, while in principle the EU is great (my only problem is that it isn't globalist enough), the practicalities seem to have been co-opted by international capital. For instance, law-making powers are still reserved to the Commissioners. Politicians who never have to run for elections again are not the right people to put in such a role, and yet, that's what happens. The Council of Ministers are even worse. All the national governments get together, fight, make a decision that the EU then implements, then each national government goes home and blames the EU for it. Meanwhile, things that would actually make life better for the people of the EU (roaming charges are a good example) are held up for years because they damage sets of national interests. Don't even get me started on the Euro. On the other hand, the EU means that western europe and some of the rest has been in relative peace for over sixty years now, and there is definitely more of a sense of common identity across the countries, which is brilliant. We've changed from young men dying in the muck to old men arguing over idiocies, and while that's not a perfect change, its still better than the alternatives. But the forces of maximising profit by shifting work to lower-cost countries are the real causes of the hollowing-out of much of the UK outside London. This, along with perceived loss of identity, causes those people to lose faith in all of the internationalist movements which are backed by capital, and vote Leave.

johnbm 10y ago

Funny, "Dog-whistle" is the loudest dog-whistle I know, for strawmanning. "We all know what you really mean, wink wink, nod nod, and therefor you are a bigot / racist / etc."

rukittenme 10y ago

Are you the same type of person who accuses people of cultural appropriation? Does it exist or not? Is culture something worth cherishing and preserving and experiencing or is it too tribal for the modern era? I had a great trip overseas recently. I loved being in a different place and in a different culture. I hope the people of that place continue their traditions because I want others to experience it as well. I want my own culture to continue, as horrible as that might sound. It's not perfect, and its always changing for better or worse, but its my culture and I think there's value in its existence.

mc32 10y ago
I think the way the recipe goes is something like this: any non-dominant culture is unique and worth preserving (however, it may not be appropriated by outsiders) and any dominant culture is not only oppressive by nature but not worth preserving (should be diluted) except where its philosophy is to prefer non-dominant culture --and it may be appropriated, most naturally.

sigmaml 10y ago

Do you have a definition of culture? The argument for, or against, preserving it depends heavily on that definition. I am from India. Millennia of foreign trade and coexistence with other religions yet preserved a cultural identity within most subgroups of Hinduism. This cultural identity relates to seasonal festivals, religious festivals, ceremonies related to events of life (such as birth of a child and marriage), etc. During the last three decades, or so, we have been experiencing a new wave of globalisation. It has resulted in a growing trend of identity and relationships getting determined solely based on economic factors. This relentless drive for financial growth has largely relegated the cultural legacy to the fringes. One of the most visible social consequences is that of alienation. Common gatherings and celebrations are rare except in the cases of two or three high-profile festivals. Neighbours do not know one another; they do not talk to one another except for a mechanical "Hello"; they do not have a few moments for one another's needs. Culturally, these people have - if at all - erred on the side of being "nosy", not alien. But, that is the new reality. Similarly, those parts of culture that relate to the softer or the subtler aspects of Nature are dying a rapid death. Examples include the harvest festival (makara sankranti) and celebrating Sun (ratha saptami). A natural consequence of this is that people are losing touch with Nature, an appreciation for it, and spend most of their time indoors. There is little to no physical exercise outdoors. It can be argued that gyms and other exercise regimen should be followed, etc. However, I see more value in having a culture that seamlessly integrates them into everyday life. Finally, I am at a loss to understand how exactly this relates to racism. Any such connotations have to be tacked on; they are not intrinsic to culture.

venomsnake 10y ago

I love my country[1] Europe which is secular, hedonistic, sexually liberated and with gender equality. I want to preserve it that way. [1] I do think of it that way.