3 ms·
> immigration should be slow enough that they can be thoroughly assimilated before they change American culture I support your idea. Would you agree that all i
by purerandomness 4mo ago
> immigration should be slow enough that they can be thoroughly assimilated before they change American culture
I support your idea. Would you agree that all immigrants that arrived in America after, let's say, 1493, have to leave America and apply for citizenship?
If you don't agree, can you propose another immigration year after which you'd have to leave America again? Would you agree on 1783?
- baggy_trough 4mo agoCertainly not, but it would have been natural for the American Indians to desire this. They lacked the means to carry it out of course.
- defrost 4mo agoThat tracks, elsewhere: There's nothing I would rather be Than to be an Aborigine And watch you take my precious land away For nothing gives me greater joy Than to watch you fill each girl and boy With superficial, existential shit Now you may think I'm cheeky But I'd be satisfied To rebuild your convict ships And sail them on the tide ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Chi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Chi
- rayiner 4mo agoYour joke inadvertently shows the error in your logic. “America” (in the sense of the nation) didn’t exist in 1493. Various Indian nations existed in this land. British people didn’t “immigrate” to those Indian societies. They created a new society on the land. They were settler colonizers, as the kids say these days.
- purerandomness 4mo ago> Your joke I'm not amused. Are you amused? > They created a new society on the land. I see my message didn't quite get through. You're almost there however. Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
- rayiner 4mo agoNothing! If a superior civilization comes to America and wipes it out and builds a new society in its place, then those people will also be “settlers” not “immigrants.”
- mktk1001 4mo agoDo you mean the kind of superior civilization that progressed from chattel slavery to being run by a cabal of pedophiles?
- rayiner 4mo agoThe kind that invented the internet and the airplane and the microchip and put a man on the moon.
- callmeal 4mo ago> The kind that invented the internet Seriously did not expect a MiniTel reference here. Vive Le France‽ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
- rayiner 4mo agoARPAnet had already been out a decade by then. TCP/IP was standardized the same year MiniTel came out.
- Dylan16807 4mo agoI'm worried about your use of "superior" here but yeah the rest of that is right.
- remarkEon 4mo agoWhy? It is demonstrably superior. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be debating whether it’s immoral to not let everyone else on the planet in.
- bvanheu 4mo ago[flagged]
- rayiner 4mo agoThe legally correct term is “Indian.” Obviously they had their own names for themselves. “First Nations” and “Native” are terms that are not rooted either in Indians’ names for themselves nor in the U.S. government’s name for them.
- satvikpendem 4mo agoAs an actual Indian from India I do get annoyed that Columbus's misconception has lived on this long, although I understand there's nothing I can do to change that.
- rayiner 4mo agoAt this rate they’ll fix the ambiguity by fully adopting Bharat.
- mondrian 4mo agoOf course native people didn’t call themselves Indian prior to settlers assigning them that name, with legal consequences. But native people usually refer to their tribe identity, like Diné or Lakota, rather than the generic term Indian.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- sillysaurusx 4mo agoCGP Grey argues this same point: not only is Indian the legally correct term, but it’s the correct term in general. https://youtu.be/kh88fVP2FWQ?si=touZCydc-7jckeLh https://youtu.be/kh88fVP2FWQ?si=touZCydc-7jckeLh
- 4mo ago
- remarkEon 4mo agoI like how you think you’re dunking on immigration restrictionists but in your hypothetical you implicitly admit there’s a hierarchy of belonging and claim to a nation, and temporal proximity to its discovery and founding is quite obviously one of the most important.