Shutting Down The Debate
It infuriates me when I hear staunch Right-wingers interrupt a discussion about the violence in Iraq, or the activities of Hamas, and say something like, “Stop calling them insurgents or militants. They’re terrorists!” Even if the persons in question are terrorists, the purpose of the statement is to shut down any possible dissent.
The same thing happens in the debate over illegal immigrants. Pro-illegal-immigrant activists have liberally dished out the “Racist” label against anyone who opposes them. Such a tactic is intended to intimidate and silence anyone who might disagree.
I haven’t made up my mind about either subject, and I think there should be a healthy public debate. We should be able to debate what an insurgent is, what a terrorist is, and whether the people we’re referring to have any legitimate gripes, without being told that we’re un-patriotic or harming national security. We should be able to discuss whether our country has the right to decide who gets to be here and who doesn’t - and how we want to use that right - without being told that we just hate brown people.
I don’t care if you know you’re right, and everyone else is wrong. When you try to shut down the debate, you’re stealing my fundamental right to participate in the democratic process.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:31 am
So they are “illegal” and I am not a racist, and they are insurging terrorists-can we get on with the discussion now?
What do you think about the idea that some of the Mexicans feel they have as much right to the Western part of this country as we do (and the “native Americans” do), considering they were once “native Americanish”. Just because one of their government leaders sold us the land for “mere pesos” years ago, does that man they should honor this transaction-at least at a “heart” level? Of course they have to recognize the legalities involved, even if they choose to ignore them.
Anyway, it’s a stance some could take-even if they have no idea what they are talking about.
It’s definitely something that should be included in the discussion. Personally, I don’t think it’s a good argument. It’s true that Mexicans are generally of mixed European and Native American descent, but their “Native American” heritage is from what is now Mexico. As far as the “sale” goes, their government’s ownership of the territory was just as morally questionable as ours, and any Mexicans who were part of the territory when it was sold stayed and became US citizens by default, I suspect. - SF
July 31st, 2006 at 6:24 pm
With that being said, which governments and nations are truly “legitimate”? Should we throw them all out with the bath water and it be Anarchy in the UK?
I think Anarchy is a bit like one of those elements at the bottom of the periodic table which only exist in the lab for split seconds. Eliminate a country’s government and it will be replaced by - if nothing else - a collection of warlords and mafias, which are simply despotic, tribal governments of limited scope. But if you accept the basic democratic principle, that the legitimacy of any government is based on the general consent of its subjects, then certainly some governments are more legitimate than others. Whether or not the US was founded legitimately, according to this principle it is certainly legit now. - SF