4 ms·

I have yet to see anyone try to advance a similar line of argument citing the past or present hostility existing between the Japanese, Chinese, and Korean peopl

I have yet to see anyone try to advance a similar line of argument citing the past or present hostility existing between the Japanese, Chinese, and Korean peoples as proof that "East Asians" don't really exist and are merely some kind of social construct--let alone with the non-obvious corollary that the peoples wrongly socially constructed as "East Asian," not really existing as such, should therefore immediately open their immigration flood gates to the swarming masses of Africa and the Middle East.

anigbrowl 10y ago
I'm impressed by the number of fallacies you manged to cram into a single run-on sentence.
- throwaway000040 10y ago
  I think I characterized by analogy the argument of both the article and the grandparent quite well: "Because many Anglo-Saxons despised the Irish and Italians a century ago, white people don't really exist as anything more than a social construct (someone apparently forgot to tell the NIH, CDC, and 23andme this), and the opposition to mass immigration from Somalia, Syria, or other countries in those regions is a result of prejudice against and fear of a socially-constructed non-white 'other.'" Where are the articles arguing that "East Asians," "Indians," "Arabs," or other racial groups are just social constructs and that these peoples consequently lack the right to control the immigration policy of their respective nation-states?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Well, the first place to look would be in ethnic studies departments, which examine (exactly* such questions. Secondly, you might want to consider that 'East Asian' works OK as a geographic descriptor, but you're assuming that a western-originated social construct of 'East Asians' is held by the people who live in that region, most of whom I think would argue that their genetic similarities are superficial, just as almost all humans have two arms and two legs etc. I could also point to the rather complex internal history of the Asian countries you mention to highlight the existence of internal disagreements in those countries about the nature of identity, but that would involve a long historical detour and a ton of background material that neither of us likely has the inclination to review. It might be worth mentioning that I regard your view of East Asian identity as extremely simplistic partly because I'm married to an Asian person and have had a disproportionately large number of friends from that region for several decades. Your homogenous characterization of the region is superficially persuasive but falls apart as soon as you look at the history of the region in any detail. As for lacking the right to control immigration policy (a subject that was not in discussion but which is clearly what you want to express your views about, arguments against the restrictive immigration policy that obtains in the various East Asian countries are made all the time - not on the basis of those people lacking rights of self-determination but on the basis of economic utility. Finally, you overlook the fact that the the US (where I suspect you are based and whose immigration policy you're indirectly commenting on) was, unlike the East Asian countries you mention, explicitly founded on inclusive liberal ideas (as exemplified in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) rather than on an ethnic nationalist identity and that it's not unreasonable to evaluate US policy in the light of the assertions upon which it is nominally founded.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    Ask any "East Indian" what their population and subgroups actually consist of and you will get an immediate list of subgroups, immigration history and ideological differences. You're right that those are all equally social constructs. Same with Arabs, that's a massive group. When someone is discriminated against with a broad brush their list of qualifications for "an ally" is often the other people equally maligned in that group, so if "Arabs" as a group talk back to discrimination against "Arabs" then that's an unsurprising development.

anigbrowl 10y ago

I'm impressed by the number of fallacies you manged to cram into a single run-on sentence.

throwaway000040 10y ago
I think I characterized by analogy the argument of both the article and the grandparent quite well: "Because many Anglo-Saxons despised the Irish and Italians a century ago, white people don't really exist as anything more than a social construct (someone apparently forgot to tell the NIH, CDC, and 23andme this), and the opposition to mass immigration from Somalia, Syria, or other countries in those regions is a result of prejudice against and fear of a socially-constructed non-white 'other.'" Where are the articles arguing that "East Asians," "Indians," "Arabs," or other racial groups are just social constructs and that these peoples consequently lack the right to control the immigration policy of their respective nation-states?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Well, the first place to look would be in ethnic studies departments, which examine (exactly* such questions. Secondly, you might want to consider that 'East Asian' works OK as a geographic descriptor, but you're assuming that a western-originated social construct of 'East Asians' is held by the people who live in that region, most of whom I think would argue that their genetic similarities are superficial, just as almost all humans have two arms and two legs etc. I could also point to the rather complex internal history of the Asian countries you mention to highlight the existence of internal disagreements in those countries about the nature of identity, but that would involve a long historical detour and a ton of background material that neither of us likely has the inclination to review. It might be worth mentioning that I regard your view of East Asian identity as extremely simplistic partly because I'm married to an Asian person and have had a disproportionately large number of friends from that region for several decades. Your homogenous characterization of the region is superficially persuasive but falls apart as soon as you look at the history of the region in any detail. As for lacking the right to control immigration policy (a subject that was not in discussion but which is clearly what you want to express your views about, arguments against the restrictive immigration policy that obtains in the various East Asian countries are made all the time - not on the basis of those people lacking rights of self-determination but on the basis of economic utility. Finally, you overlook the fact that the the US (where I suspect you are based and whose immigration policy you're indirectly commenting on) was, unlike the East Asian countries you mention, explicitly founded on inclusive liberal ideas (as exemplified in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) rather than on an ethnic nationalist identity and that it's not unreasonable to evaluate US policy in the light of the assertions upon which it is nominally founded.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  Ask any "East Indian" what their population and subgroups actually consist of and you will get an immediate list of subgroups, immigration history and ideological differences. You're right that those are all equally social constructs. Same with Arabs, that's a massive group. When someone is discriminated against with a broad brush their list of qualifications for "an ally" is often the other people equally maligned in that group, so if "Arabs" as a group talk back to discrimination against "Arabs" then that's an unsurprising development.