Quote:
Originally Posted by wetibbe
Apart from being some interesting history, is this supposed to be going somewhere relevant to current events?
|
Yes.
While it is futile to argue with brown supremacists, precisely because the brown racist aim is to distract from illegal immigration by turning the issue from illegal presence to that of white racism - seeking to both to inflict white guilt and sympathy to their cause. As well, in a whole catalog of half truths and whole lies they propagandize the past, with quite a bit of comparing themselves (descendants of immigrants from Latin America) and the modern influx to many things in the distant past. Among those is the general Irish immigration of the 19th century.
There is also the American brown racist denunciation of the American yesteryear as though the past is going on today, but the political party which grovels before them and which they are attempting to dominate was mostly a racially oppressive and imperialistic entity until the 1960's. You can't shout about the racism of Jim Crow without denouncing the Democrat party, because both were products of one another.
While it might not be productive to engage in a shout down, brown supremacists lose their power when the truth comes out and their slants and outright fabrications as well as their lies by omission are exposed.
1) "They come to feed their families".
I don't recall seeing any Mexicans fresh over the border who appear to be underfed. There are the trash pickers of Mexico City and Tijuana and undoubtedly there are some who would be in dire straights if it were not for remittances, but on the whole they have access to food in Mexico. They come for the cash not available in Mexico for materialism and the Mexican Government uses migration as a pressure valve for social issues and to distract from governmental reform. There are lots of jobs available in Mexico, but there are few wages beyond subsistence.
The Irish were genuinely starving.
2) "19th century Irish immigration experiences are proof of white racism against Latinos in the late 20th and 21st centuries".
The Irish were white English speakers, White German Speakers and foreign language Jews from Western and Eastern Europe didn't have the same rub with English descended Americans as Irish migration did. There were historical reasons for this, such as the 200 year split between the Roman faith, King Henry VIII Anglicism, and northern European Protestantism (which was drowned in blood on all sides) as well as all the truly tragic Irish and English blood drenching Ireland for about five hundred previous years to the Potato famine.
Nothing in history between Anglo America of yesteryear or multi racial America of today and Latin America in any century can even begin to compare with the history of the British Isles transplanted to and somewhat continued in America.
3) 19th century Irish, German, Jews, and modern Latin Americans resist(ed) assimilation. Subsequent generations of descendants of those people might pretend to still be their ancestors, but it is inevitable that some assimilation occurs. Many of modern migrants from Latin America are here to take advantage of American largesse rather than to become American, and their numbers and an institutional change among the government and education demands that they stay separate rather than assimilate.
4) Those who could do so among Irish immigrants sent remittances. Some among the American born and those brought very young became politically active with corrupt political institutions. The immigrants themselves appear to have been generally politically apathetic. There are parallels here.
5) There was overwhelming alcoholism and substantial violence and crime among themselves within what would now be termed "the Irish community". There is the obvious parallel in "the Latino community". However, you just don't see the genuinely terrible destitution among the new migration as was the experience of the former. As terrible as it is, Duroville in the Coachella Valley is a heavenly paradise compared to 19th century Five Points in New York. As well, who has seen any driving genuinely delapidated vehicles in the style of the Cesar Chavez days?
6) Both migrations were/are largely composed of the uneducated and unskilled.
7) The first of what could be called a welfare outreach was instituted within Five Points by a Protestant cause (Peese?). There was no cash or other off premises assistance and was largely composed of being cleaned up, dried out (sobered up), clothed and fed while learning an occupation. Some Irish Catholics opposed it because it was a protestant effort. Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, himself having grown up in Five points, instituted the first government handout both as a Catholic response to the protestant effort as well as cynically farming votes. Tammany Hall was a corrupt Democrat political machine, and is the origin of the fact that California, with 12% of the US population, has 33% of the national welfare burden and LA county (California's ultimate expression of Aztlan), with 26% of the California population, has 39% of California welfare cases. California is a vote pandering, corrupt democrat refuge using modern migration and ethnic nationalism to gain political power.
Tammany Hall, the Democrat Party, La Raza Unida take over of local government and education system in Texas, etc, etc. Lots of parallels and important differences in the very different migrations, but both are much, much more complex than "Anglo Sajon racism" or the notion that everyone in a somewhat defined group are all the same person.
This thread is sort of an out loud personal exploration of the truth. Some of it goes back to determining just who is the ultimate enemy and who is the unwitting tool - the person in front of your face or the one in the cloaked background pulling the strings?