What a shame - my first BHtv in quite a while and this woman has to bulldoze the conversation. Please have Mr. K back with a more civil partner, it's an important topic. Why not Mickey, he loves this issue?

For someone who has just written a book on the subject, captain Krikorian was clearly less in command of the facts and issues than his challenger. He seemed to have only one idea -- Mexican immigrants are nineteenth century peasants in a 21st century America. Sounds good but didnt get him very far. He really deserved the sound drubbing he received.

This was pretty pointless. Dalmia seemed to not listen to what Krikorian actually said; making it a bit hard for him to make his case. And her line of argument in regards to the term "foreignborn" was outright bizarre. The term has an exact meaning which makes her point that Krikorian should refer to himself as "foreignborn" because his grandfather was an immigrant tautologically wrong. And even if we try to help her out and substitute "foreignborn" for "immigrant" or some such to make her argument meet at least some minimum logical standard, it still seems highly questionable to me to not count naturalized citizens when discussing the effects of immigration on society. I immigrated in my mid twenties myself, have lived less than 10 years in the US and will soon be eligible to become a US citizen. If I do take that step, that will emphatically not change the fact that culturally, I remain a Scandinavian.

This guy is off the wall – that he wants to build. He has just released a study claiming
that immigration leads to dangerous increases in greenhouse gas emissions!! He’ll say
anything. His position that even highly skilled immigrants are a danger to this country
is off the scale of reasonable debate. He couldnt defend any of his claims in this
debate. He can’t make the economic case against skilled immigrants, so he has invented
an emotional argument that is semi-paranoid.

Polywonk, did you listen to the dialogue? From the outset, Ms. Dalmia was dismissive of Mr. Krikorian's thesis, lobbed cherry-picked statistics at him in an outraged tone, and argued as if the plural of anecdote is data. In the time in which he was permitted to speak, Mr. Krikorian demonstrated command of relevant facts and (especially helpful) worked to clarify the categories in which the discussion is conducted. I agree it would be good to have him back; I'm not sure Mickey Kaus would be the best interlocutor -- although that diavlog would balance this one -- but someone willing to consider a restrictionist case as a policy option to be assessed rather than a heresy to be shouted down would be welcome.

Krikorian had the posture of a reasonable guy, but he ended up backing down on all of his arguments when under fire from Dalmia. In the end he's just another scare mongerer dressed up in sheeps clothing. He claims the US will be flooded with immigrants from low-wage countries if it doesn't hurry up and build a wall to keep the hordes out. But this is obvious bullshit. Just look at Puerto Rico. The whole island has US citizenship, their wages are 35% lower than ours, and yet net immigration from the PR is currently zero. Zilch. NADA. Comprende?

jeffpeterson: Yes, I listened to the whole debate, such as it was. It wasn't much of a debate because Mr. Krikorian could not back up very many of his confidently asserted positions. Ms. Dalmia relied, not on anecdote, but on facts -- "cherry-picked" being an odd description of them from more than one point of view. It is true that she betrayed her indignation at K's views but having listened to the whole exchange, I can't blame her. From start to finish, she showed that his views were based on a combination of myth and misinformation. He didnt have the facts about the relative size of current immigration, about welfare use in comparison to tax payments, about levels of patriotism as shown by participation in the armed forces, about US policies in comparison to other industrial countries, and so forth down the line. You and another blogger want to hear from K again, no doubt hoping that he'll do a better job. Unlikely.

I immigrated in my mid twenties myself, have lived less than 10 years in the US and will soon be eligible to become a US citizen. If I do take that step, that will emphatically not change the fact that culturally, I remain a Scandinavian.

So what? What's so great about so-called cultural assimilation? Way overrated. In fact, why is it even rated at all? What difference does it make to anyone if Shikha feels Indian or not?

I agree with the sentiments expressed above. Though I don't agree with Mark, I do think he should be treated with more respect. Or if that can't be managed, don't talk to him at all. Also the diavlog was a little confusing because Shikha seemed to be attacking what she knew his position to be rather than allowing him to explain his position and then attack it. A good example of this is her objecting to calling foreign born citizens immigrants. The way she denounced this so aggressively made me think there must be more to the story than what he managed to articulate. In the end, I ended up sympathizing personally with the person with whom I disagree politically. And that can't be an effective strategy.

This diavlog was hard to listen to, due to Ms. Dalmia's lack of civility. As to the debate: I thought that both made relatively good arguments. I appreciated the factual grounding of the debate (often lacking in the blogosphere). I found Mr. Krikorian's factual analysis to be generally superior, though the relevance of these facts to his conclusions is up for debate. E.G. the qualitative change in emotional assimilation may be born out by the facts (this one appeared to be a wash from my perspective), but it does not convince me that we are in dire need of restricting legal immigration.

Krikorian was "backing down" because Dalmia would not allow him to get a word in edgewise, would raise her voice when he tried to, and would not extend the conversational courtesies to him that he extended to her. Also where did in the diavlog did he push for a wall? Can you give us a ding-a-link? Krikorian and CIS's main goal is attrition through enforcement (worksite enforcement, work visa enforcement, E-Verify, etc.) Jobs are the primary magnet for immigrants. A border fence may be helpful (or simply a distraction) but enforcement is the main goal.

It's ironic that the person wearing the "Reason" t-shirt is hysterical and unreasonable. Her argument about West Germany assimilating millions of East Germans reminded me of when I used to do debate in high school. And the libertarians complain that they don't get taken seriously.

Quoting anothervoice: Krikorian had the posture of a reasonable guy, but he ended up backing down on all of his arguments when under fire from Dalmia. In the end he's just another scare mongerer dressed up in sheeps clothing. He claims the US will be flooded with immigrants from low-wage countries if it doesn't hurry up and build a wall to keep the hordes out. But this is obvious bullshit. Just look at Puerto Rico. The whole island has US citizenship, their wages are 35% lower than ours, and yet net immigration from the PR is currently zero. Zilch. NADA. Comprende?

Anothervoice -- Puerto Rican residents do not pay federal income tax on income earned in Puerto Rico. Also, under Section 30A industry enjoys a tax credit for operations conducted in Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the predecessor to the current tax credit Section 936, was enacted in 1976. As you can see from the attached chart, at p. 6, Puerto Rican migration reversed itself when Section 936 was enacted in 1976. One way of looking at it is that the government is, in substance, bribing Puerto Ricans to stay in Puerto Rico, rather than migrating to the mainland.

Quoting Wonderment: So what? What's so great about so-called cultural assimilation? Way overrated. In fact, why is it even rated at all? What difference does it make to anyone if Shikha feels Indian or not?

I don't think the important question about assimilation is whether one continues to identify with one's country and culture of origin or not, but rather whether one also comes to identify with the culture into which one has immigrated. It's fine to continue caring deeply about India and Indian culture (and ditto for other countries and cultures of origin, of course), but will Indian immigrants to the U.S (or to Britain, France, etc.) also adopt many of the main features of American (British, French) culture, internalize them, care about them, etc? It seems this latter concern could only be viewed as overrated by someone who thought that preserving American (British, French, etc.) culture was itself overrated. I find it striking that many people who don't particularly care about preserving and protecting such cultures which in recent years have been dealing with massive immigration -- and I'm not saying that's your view, Wonderment; I don't know what your view is on this -- themselves identify strongly with other cultures

One wonders how Ms Dalmia has ever learned anything with her undeveloped ability to listen. But maybe she is more aware than she lets on. Her bullying and dismissive tactics are symptomatic of someone who does not have a real argument. She chooses to obfuscate, interrupt and deflect instead of engaging in civil point-counterpoint where (god forbid) Mr Krikorian may get his point across. It might work in most US university humanities classes but I expect more from BhTV. Please try again with someone who respects the subject, the other blogger and the viewers. As to Puerto Rico: I worked there for one year in 2004 and was as amazed by the trashed beaches and high crime rate as I was the disdain for everything American (except dollars). There are some wonderful people there but the movement for independance coupled with the demand for US largesse was strange indeed.

It wasn't only that Shikha was rude and dismissive; she was really loud. is that the fault of the Blogginhead editors?

The problem with complaining about Dalmia's indignant tone and occasional interruption is that she was clearly provoked. I know that there is a taboo against saying in public that anyone, short of an open Klan member, ever says or does anything racist ("the Race Card"). However, let's be honest. His views on immigration are racist. The point about "foreign born," which superficially seemed like a dead-end or a side-issue, is crucial. John McCain is "foreign born" (in Panama). Does that make him less "American"? Does that make him a threat to anything important (setting aside that very real risk that he may come to occupy the Presidency)? Does Krikorian even think so? No. He is clear. It's those Hispanics that he's worried about. Not because they are "foreign born," in the literal sense, but because even if they become citizens, he doesn't think they can ever really be Americans. He concedes that once they becomes citizens, there's "nothing we can do about that" (or some words to that effect), but he still defines them as a problematic category. Taboo or no taboo, I'm willing to call that racist. And how can one expect a person of color, and a "foreign

I agree with Drew: provide Dingalinks for your assertions. Though I'm more in favor of immigration than Krikorian is, I applaud his courteousness and deplore Dalmia's lack of same. If Dalmia really agreed -- as she claimed to -- that questions of immigration are definitional, not moral, then she wouldn't have so heatedly talked past every point that Krikorian made. The dialog never got to the point of discussing in any satisfying way whether or not low-wage immigrants depress the wages of American born low-wage workers. Dalmia was harangued the issues before they could be discussed.

all these libertarians seem to be salivating over opening the gates to immigration BUT nobody callls them out on the real issues on what their motivations are: to line the pockets of the rich by displacing citizens with cheap labor provided by those who are "foreign born." This is the elephant in the room...why isnt this issue discussed?

Is it just me or does Shikha's performance present the next wave in the opinion world? I think since that moment Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire and asked the talking heads to be more real, information junkies have been hoping to hear discourse that is more direct, honest, and combined both head with heart. For those of you who think she was uncivil, I posit this to you: How civil is it to NOT engage others in a passionate way? I call that UNKIND! People talk about wanting a return to more civil public discourse, but I think the only way for us to move forward together is to really blow the top off civil discourse. Let's get furious about what we believe in, and bring some of our heart to our mind and logic. Let's care enough about each other to engage each other in this more real fashion than the decrepit claptrap banter that has become the norm. I really can't believe people are condemning this bright shining beacon of hope. Go, Shikha! Wake up world! Passion is the future! And if it isn't your future, what are you living for?

SteveD I completely agree with you. Dalmia’s naivety through this exchange – and I did not watch the whole thing – was quite amusing. What was amazing to me was that she took his arguments seriously – preachy though she was -- as if he actually cared about the facts. Only toward the middle did she seem to be catching on to how Krikorian has stacked the deck against immigrants when she said that it seemed that with him, “heads he wins, tails immigrants lose.” Did she not know that going into this debate? Had she watched this YouTube video on CIS’s vitriolic genesis she might have known what she was dealing with. The video shows that CIS, along with others of its ilk, has been funded by John Tanton, founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform – an anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic group that reprinted French fascist Jean Raspail’s Camp of Saints that depicts France as being taken over by swarthy Eastern hordes arriving at its shores on a flotilla. Tanton has created fronts like the CIS to put a respectable patina on what is at root an utterly racist anti-immigrant agenda. CIS tries

what this conversation showed is that S. Dalmia can't listen and doesn't really know what her statistics mean. i'd love to see mark have a conversation with someone that is capable of engaging in a conversation instead of just being defensive and not listening.

like the "myth" that "foreign born" means being born in a different country? She couldn't even wrap her mind around one of the simplest ideas in the conversation. absolutely pathetic.

passion in arguments generally obscures both analysis and information. If you just want to scream at people and feel "empowered" then - sure your idea works. If you want a discussion to be something where both sides just might learn something or think about something in a new way, then passion ( as expressed by shikha in this DV) is a huge obstacle.

Ginger Baker writes:

all these libertarians seem to be salivating over opening the gates to immigration BUT nobody callls them out on the real issues on what their motivations are: to line the pockets of the rich by displacing citizens with cheap labor provided by those who are "foreign born."

Ironically, that is exactly the opposite of Krikorian's view of the motivation of pro-immigration advocates. According to his column on the issue in the National Review online, advocates of immigration see it as "a way to promote more socialism." Of course, you're both leaving out the more plausible interpretation: some people advocate immigration because it is so obviously a good thing. As for the impact of immigration on wages, it is well known that many of the most effective trade unionists, both now and in the past, have come from the ranks of immigrants, and when they are thus organized into unions immigrants have an enormously positive impact on wages. Nativist sentiments, by contrast, play into the hands of employers who want to weaken and undermine the effectiveness of unions and working-class solidarity.

Quoting ginger baker: all these libertarians seem to be salivating over opening the gates to immigration BUT nobody callls them out on the real issues on what their motivations are: to line the pockets of the rich by displacing citizens with cheap labor provided by those who are "foreign born." This is the elephant in the room...why isnt this issue discussed?

It should be discussed. A couple of years ago someone came out with a study saying that the middle class in Los Angeles had shrunk to the 20 percentile range. At this rate California will be become a 2 tiered society:the rich and the workers who serve them. After reading the comments here I am glad I took a pass on this diavlog. John

Quoting jaymurray: Had she watched this YouTube video on CIS’s vitriolic genesis she might have known what she was dealing with. The video shows that CIS, along with others of its ilk, has been funded by John Tanton, founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform – an anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic group that reprinted French fascist Jean Raspail’s Camp of Saints that depicts France as being taken over by swarthy Eastern hordes arriving at its shores on a flotilla. Tanton has created fronts like the CIS to put a respectable patina on what is at root an utterly racist anti-immigrant agenda. CIS tries to obfuscate this link, but Krikorian himself apparently worked for FAIR at one time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpiq1...opthehate.org/

Interesting video. I'm not familiar with the people or organizations it discusses, but its unsubtle take-home message seems to be that anyone, like Krikorian, who favors significant restrictions on immigration is a white supremacist. (The expression is repeated at least five times throughout the video.) And presumably anyone who admires Krikorkian's book, like Mickey Kaus, is a white supremacist too. Here's Mickey's blurb for the book:

Mark Krikorian has been the go-to guy for those of us skeptical of

Mexican immigrants are nineteenth century peasants in a 21st century America

And he seems to forget that 21st Century America's widespread access to the marvel of technology is exactly what will accelerate the assimilation of newcomers into the culture. Everybody wants an Ipod, a fast internet connection, and a Coke. Okay, maybe not everybody, but most of us. And to those beating up on Dalmia for being a tad shrill? I don't think so, the sound quality of this video is absolutely abysmal, morphing passion into something else. I don't know who did the sound engineering but they need a new guy. I have high quality Bose computer speakers and it was making me nuts. I also fail to see the utility of lumping foreign born American citizens, like Senator John McCain, for example, into a huge pot that includes other legal non-citizens as well as illegals. What is the point in this other than to pad the numbers. Look! There's FORTY MILLION OF THEM! Hide your daughters.

wow Steve. you are as backwards as you could be. see the link below for the explanation for the pro-immigration view - yep, it's all about having more people for business owners to exploit. It is rare for someone like Shikha to just come out and say it. Thank you for that Shikha http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/133...8:49&out=59:06

Quoting popcorn_karate: wow Steve. you are as backwards as you could be. see the link below for the explanation for the pro-immigration view - yep, it's all about having more people for business owners to exploit. It is rare for someone like Shikha to just come out and say it. Thank you for that Shikha

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/133...8:49&out=59:06

It's all about cheap labor for business owners whether it be those with H1B visas or people with no to minimum skilled. John

Grow Up Guys! Have you never watched pundits with strong evidence and arguments debate before? Mark had plenty of opportunity to explain his positions--however untenable. Rather than engaging Dalmia on the issues many commentors have resorted to name-calling. She never takes this tactic and sticks with anecdotal and statistical evidence.

She just wouldn't let him speak, constantly interrupting him. A good pro-immigration advocate debating him would have been great but she was a terrible debater and it was almost impossible to listen to.

Also her claim that there is a constitutional right of an American citizen to associate with people of their own choosing and to invite illegals to come to this country is just crazed. There is no such right. I'm pro-immigrant but her argument is just wrong.

Quoting The Wine Commonsewer: And he seems to forget that 21st Century America's widespread access to the marvel of technology is exactly what will accelerate the assimilation of newcomers into the culture. Everybody wants an Ipod, a fast internet connection, and a Coke. Okay, maybe not everybody, but most of us.

If you can't read or understand English, or come from a family background that didn't prioritize education, you have little to no chance for upward mobility. There's no reason to assume it will be any different for the millions of uneducated people who illegally come here and live in poverty. Despite all the technological advancements of the past fifteen years, there has still been little upward mobility among the native-born poor population, why should it be any different for low-skilled and low-educated illegal immigrants?

mvanthony: Not every restrictionist is a racist, but Krikorian and CIS are. It is indisputable that Krikorian worked for the Federation for Immigration Reform -- and it indisputable that FAIR is a racist organization. And CIS has ties to FAIR. Why Dalmia didn't point this out is beyond me. But having finished watching the debate, it just seems to me Krikorian was so ineffective because he is defensive about his positions. Dalmia, in my view, was actually fairly civil, even after she caught on that Krikorian was not making good-faith arguments. His questioning of the emotional assimilation of highly skilled immigrants was a new spin on the old Know Nothing argument: Don't let those Catholics in because their ultimate allegiance is to the Pope! Is anyone fooled by this guy?

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: If you can't read or understand English, or come from a family background that didn't prioritize education, you have little to no chance for upward mobility. There's no reason to assume it will be any different for the millions of uneducated people who illegally come here and live in poverty. Despite all the technological advancements of the past fifteen years, there has still been little upward mobility among the native-born poor population, why should it be any different for low-skilled and low-educated illegal immigrants?

There won't be any upward mobility since many of them are not interested in education. In Los Angeles many of the city's public high schools are called "drop out factories" due to a 40% or higher drop out rate. I'm sure the same is replicated in other big cities like Chicago and Houston. John

Quoting jaymurray: mvanthony: Not every restrictionist is a racist, but Krikorian and CIS are. It is indisputable that Krikorian worked for the Federation for Immigration Reform -- and it indisputable that FAIR is a racist organization. And CIS has ties to FAIR.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I'm not sure you know what the word "indisputable" means. I don't really care if the founder of FAIR was a racist, just like I don't care that the founders of the ACLU were Soveit sympathizers, or that some of the founders of the National Council of La Raza were radicals. FAIR's agenda can be easily defended on non-racist grounds, and I have not witnessed anyone speaking on behalf of FAIR make racist comments.

Mr. K really embarrassed himself in this dialogue. His surface level critiques were broken down, completely, at the slightest hint of an objective overview. How sad that his book, that should require indepth research and analysis, could be easily reduced to whinning xenaphobia. I agree with Damalia, MR. K. just sounds irrational. She is very much so justified to put a sock in the mouth of such ignorance.

Shikha Dalmia not only has the better moral, political, and economic argument -- one that is perfectly consistent with the Declaration of Independence -- she has far better command of the facts. Mark Krikorian looked unprepared and smug. He more than met his match. I would only add to Shikha’s presentation that the freedom to move and freedom of association are natural rights, possessed by Americans and non-Americans alike by virtue of their humanity.

Calling someone a racist because you don't agree with their point of view is not a conversation stopper anymore. When bilingual education got on the ballot in California that was the pro bilingual offense: to oppose it was racist. This time it didn't work since it had proven to be an abject failure along with many other ill-concieved contemporary education plans. Thank goodness I got out of high school in 1965 and missed all the latest gimmicks that are suppose to educate the young. John

I don't think the important question about assimilation is whether one continues to identify with one's country and culture of origin or not, but rather whether one also comes to identify with the culture into which one has immigrated.

Yes, but what does that mean? Mexicans (like Israelis) already identify with the culture of their neighbor. Half their television programs and 80% of their movies are American. They follow US music culture and they ALL take American English in school. They are Christians, like most Americans and they come from a Constitutional democracy like Americans. Their biggest cultural hurdle is usually going from the metric system to feet/yards/quarts and switching from soccer to football. But even if they didn't, I don't see what cultural expectations Americans could have of their immigrants.

It's fine to continue caring deeply about India and Indian culture (and ditto for other countries and cultures of origin, of course), but will Indian immigrants to the U.S (or to Britain, France, etc.) also adopt many of the main features of American (British, French) culture, internalize them, care about them, etc?

Again, like what? What features?

I find it striking that many people who don't particularly care about preserving and protecting such

Quoting twin2jeremy: [Dalmia] is very much justified in putting a sock in the mouth of such ignorance

So shouting down opponents and talking over a fellow 'vlogger are justified 'cause Kirkorian's just so wrong? It's legitimate to use force (weakly defined) to win political arguments...this on behalf of someone working at a libertarian advocacy magazine?

More immigration-related diavlogs, please. I didn't find Ms. Dalmia as abrasive in her style as some of the other commenters did, though I agree more with Mr. Krikorian than with her. Aside from the bristling at the term "foreign born," she was mostly engaging with his arguments on his own terms. That lead to a lot of disagreement about statistics and a fair amount of misunderstanding, but it was a genuine engagement. Some of the other libertarian bloggingheads engage in a kind of spurious argumentation that I find much more exasperating and difficult to watch than Ms. Dalmia's passion. I particularly enjoyed her anecdote about her son in France.

Yes, but what does that mean?

Well, at least you agree! You're of course right that saying what it means is no easy thing, and I don't really know what to say about it. But I'll try to make some things up anyway.

Mexicans (like Israelis) already identify with the culture of their neighbor. Half their television programs and 80% of their movies are American. They follow US music culture and they ALL take American English in school. They are Christians, like most Americans and they come from a Constitutional democracy like Americans. Their biggest cultural hurdle is usually going from the metric system to feet/yards/quarts and switching from soccer to football.

That kind of identification isn't IT. This holds of (English speaking) Canadians too, even more than Mexicans, but neither Canadians nor Mexicans identify as Americans, even though they see themselves as strongly influenced by American culture. I'd say that what's missing (aside from legal stuff) is something like a voluntary, self-conscious decision to throw one's lot in with the American people, to identify oneself as an American. (I can't help thinking of Christopher Hitchens here.) One needs to feel American like Shikha feels Indian (and for all I know

Quoting SteveD: The problem with complaining about Dalmia's indignant tone and occasional interruption is that she was clearly provoked.

I know that there is a taboo against saying in public that anyone, short of an open Klan member, ever says or does anything racist ("the Race Card"). However, let's be honest. His views on immigration are racist. The point about "foreign born," which superficially seemed like a dead-end or a side-issue, is crucial. John McCain is "foreign born" (in Panama). Does that make him less "American"? Does that make him a threat to anything important (setting aside that very real risk that he may come to occupy the Presidency)? Does Krikorian even think so? No. He is clear. It's those Hispanics that he's worried about. Not because they are "foreign born," in the literal sense, but because even if they become citizens, he doesn't think they can ever really be Americans. He concedes that once they becomes citizens, there's "nothing we can do about that" (or some words to that effect), but he still defines them as a problematic category. Taboo or no taboo, I'm willing to call that racist.

And how can one expect a person of color, and a "foreign

Quoting TwinSwords: Libertarianism and Republicanism are two heads of the same hydra, both evil, both ultra-conservative, and both enemies of humanity.
.

That's an ugly sentiment and extremely unfair portrayal of your opponents' position. It seems you think disagreement is a casus belli, not a cause for debate.

Quoting Drew: That's an ugly sentiment and extremely unfair portrayal of your opponents' position. It seems you think disagreement is a casus belli, not a cause for debate.

I think you're probably right in your conclusion, but honestly, I'm not in the mood today to debate the Republican virtues of murder, torture, and racism, as justified as Republicans believe those things are, and as worthy of debate as they may believe them to be. And likewise, I have no interest in debating the merits of letting the elderly starve or the sick die of untreated disease. There are a lot of smart people willing to debate with you about those wonderful conservative principles, but it's not how I care to spend my time this evening. I just think it's repugnant. Conservatives are always talking about the value of shame. Well, fine. I think conservatives should be ashamed of their barbaric worldview, devoted as it is to the increase of human suffering.

Ooooh, he's 'Racist', run away, run away. In fact, Krikorian is too race shy. Here we have a perfect example, I highly ethnocentric Indian woman (I don't care whose passport she has, she ain't American like me or George Washington) who obviously cares about getting more of her kind ('highly skilled' Indian H1-B's) into the country my ancestors built. We'll, I'll tell you what Shikha, and SteveD , I like my country. I like its demographics, though they were better 20-30-40 years ago. I am not ashamed to say I like white folks. I don't want my country turned into a Brazil north, not for any so-called economic benefit (which, BTW is illusory -- no study has ever found that immigration benefits the native population more than a small fraction of a percent of GDP -- and such studies exclude externalities). There are plenty of non-ethnic, non-racial reasons to oppose immigration, from income inequality to local environmental damage to the 'brain drain' (not Shilkha's obviously) . But screw all that, I like my own people and see no reason to surrender the country we built to third worlders. Oh, and Shilkha ought to take a look at here own country's immigration policy -- it has become progressively tighter, they are building a wall on the Bangladesh

Any libertarians in the house? I would like to get their reaction to this article. It's a bit long, but the crux begins at the section beginning: "The affection of liberals for mass immigration..." It's basic points:
- Only 13% of Americans lean libertarian
- Libertarianism is not attractive to immigrants, since they largely come from protectionist, paternalistic, or theocratic countries.
Thus, libertarian support for mass immigration is suicidal to their cause. What do you libertarians think?

Quoting Drew: Any libertarians in the house? I would like to get their reaction to this article. It's a bit long, but the crux begins at the section beginning: "The affection of liberals for mass immigration..."

It's basic points:
- Only 13% of Americans lean libertarian
- Libertarianism is not attractive to immigrants, since they largely come from protectionist, paternalistic, or theocratic countries.
Thus, libertarian support for mass immigration is suicidal to their cause.

What do you libertarians think?

For a libertarian, especially, the idea that ethnicity is ideology seems rather strange.

Yes, but it is quite familiar to much of the world, just ask a Shia, a Wahabbi, a Bolivian mestizo, a Hutu, a Tutsi, an Ijaw, a Banda etc.

I like my country. I like its demographics, though they were better 20-30-40 years ago. I am not ashamed to say I like white folks. I don't want my country turned into a Brazil north.

Would you be open to Negros who use skin whitener and try really hard to be white people? Doesn't Obama's mom from Kansas count for anything? Maybe not 50%, but something? What if the Brazilians had 1/16 Aryan blood from back in Portugal?

Quoting stari_momak: I like my own people and see no reason to surrender the country we built to third worlders.

At least you spew your racism right upfront, rather than concealing it behind dubious statistics and a 'policy wonk' persona, like Krikorian. Either way, racism is racism. Of course, one good thing about Krikorian's approach is that he can't just brazenly falsify reality, because he does feel he needs to cite a study now and then. So he can't go around denying what everyone knows to be the case, namely, that the U.S. was mainly built by slaves and racialized immigrants, after it was stolen from indigenous people. White people just pointed the guns at everyone else and, on that basis, extorted enormous wealth from the people doing the real work.

I'd say that what's missing (aside from legal stuff) is something like a voluntary, self-conscious decision to throw one's lot in with the American people, to identify oneself as an American. (I can't help thinking of Christopher Hitchens here.) One needs to feel American like Shikha feels Indian (and for all I know American too). Or at least aspire to that.

Well, aside from how intangibly subjective such a quality is, my intuitive take on it is that first generation Americans almost never have it even in a weak form, and I'm not sure most non-immigrants have it in a strong form. (Republicans always attack Dems. for being weak on patriotic values because it's true, we are. We tend to question the flag-waving and the displays of exceptionalism.) My Mexican-born spouse certainly doesn't have even the weak identity, even after 20 years here and citizenship. My grandparents never had even the weak form either. But second generation Americans almost always have it, as my own kids do and as all my grandparents' descendants do. You go to American schools, you speak English as your native language, and bingo, you're plenty American.

But you make it sound as though

Quoting mvantony: I don't see what xenophobia has to do with it essentially. Surely lots of people who would like to restrict immigration highly value cultural/ethnic/racial diversity in their country (and so don't at all fear others who are "different"; quite the contrary). They just don't want a culture that is dominant in other countries to become dominant in theirs too. Nor do they want immigrants (when their numbers get large enough) to repeatedly push for cultural changes in the direction of their culture of origin.

I read your posts and I realize that you are indeed struggling to define what it is that bothers you. However, after reading, I must say, it sounds like typical xenophobia. The fact that it's so difficult to articulate, makes it the more likely. Since you deny this is the case, can you tell us, why you think the above is not xenophobia?

It was impossible to listen to her! Lot of her arguments didn't make sense. They seemed to be on the junior high level. And then she just got shrill on top of it! Not much of a Diavlog dialog.

Michael, I thought it might help to illustrate a little bit what my world looks like here in California. My dentist is an Iranian immigrant. My optomotrist is a Chinese immigrant. My tax preparer is an immigrant from Bangalore, India. My pharmacist is a Jordanian immigrant. My convenience store guy is Syrian. My gardener is Mexican (undocumented). Except for the Mexican, they all vote. All of them have American children who are indistinguishable culturally from their "white" age peers. How can this be an assimilation problem? And even if it were, why would we care in a globalized economy? Diaspora communities are often a win-win for both countries.

Quoting stari_momak: I like my country. I like its demographics, though they were better 20-30-40 years ago. I am not ashamed to say I like white folks.

I realize that statements such as these strike most people as racist and deeply immoral (even though the writer includes "I like its demographics"). And I'm sure many people who utter similar statements are racists (in the standard immoral sense of unjust discrimination on the basis of race). But must such statements be racist and immoral? Must white people who utter them be racist and immoral? If the answer to these two questions is 'yes', then must it also be the case that a (racially) Japanese citizen of Japan who likes Japanese people and Japanese culture, and Japan's demographics, is also racist? Must a racially Indian citizen of India who cares about Indian people and likes India's demographics be racist? (Analogous questions can obviously be asked about lots of other peoples in other countries.) It seems to me that answer to the questions about Japanese and Indian people is clearly 'no'. It's obviously possible for a racially Japanese/Indian person to like Japanese/Indian people and Japan's/India's culture and demographics, and

Wonderment and Ocean, I'll respond to your posts some time soon. I need to be away from the computer for a while. In the mean time I've posted something else that's likely to horrify you and others here.

Quoting mvantony: Wonderment and Ocean,

I'll respond to your posts some time soon. I need to be away from the computer for a while. In the mean time I've posted something else that's likely to horrify you and others here.

I hope you don't mind my interjection, but context counts. I have a fairly good recollection of your postings. And because of that, I am not horrified, rather inspired to rethink my assumptions. I hope to hear from all of you on this subject.

As I said, I myself have such reactions (one reason for that presumably being that many whites who say such things also say nasty things about Jews, while few Japanese and Indians do). Still, I believe the issue cries out for closer examination. Am I missing something obvious?

Yes, I think you're missing the cultural and historical context. Let's take a simple example. CASE 1: An old German former Nazi Party member meets you in Berlin and says, "You know, Michael, I've always felt very creepy around Jews. There's something about you people that bothers me. I prefer living in my own country without Jews. You personally are an exception, of course. You're unlike most Jews." CASE 2: An Israeli Holocaust survivor meets a nice German man on a visit to Berlin.. "You know, Hans, I've always felt very creepy around Germans. There's something about you people that bothers me. I prefer living in my own country without Germans. You personally are an exception, of course. You're unlike most Germans." According to what you have previously stated, these are equivalent situations. Both the German and the Jew are equally ethnocentric (or not). I would argue that -- given the historical context -- the German's attitude is completely contemptible, while the Jew's attitude is imperfect, but quite

I am trying to make up my mind on immigration. I lean somewhat in the pro direction but would like to hear some good arguments against it. But I must say that Mark is as ineffectual and unprepared a debater as I have ever seen. I don't care about demographic arguments, but he had, it seems to me, no comeback to Dalmia's numbers showing that both the US and other countries have endured far greater rates of immigration. The 3 or so per 1000 immigrants we admit right now just does not seem like a huge deal to me. In any case, I am more interested in economic and cultural arguments. On the economic side, it seemed like just a slam dunk that immigrants benefit us -- because Mark had no research showing that they consumed more than they contributed to our economy. As for cultural arguments, Mark's only point was that immigrants don't assimilate these days, which strikes me as dubious. If you have another debate on this subject, please arrange for someone smarter on the con side. I really would like to hear a good argument against immigration.

It was impossible to listen to her! Lot of her arguments didn't make sense. They seemed to be on the junior high level. And then she just got shrill on top of it! Not much of a Diavlog dialog

You must be death or so blindly conservative that you can't think straight. Listen, Im not calling this guy a racist or a bigot, but there has to be something said about someone who dedicates an entire book to anti-immigration propoganda. So if it walks and talks like a duck: it must be a duck. I am just allergic to eggregious intellectual dishonesty. Why listen to Mr. K talk for an hour when it's painfully obvious that he will forfeit all reason. He has no credibility. And YES, people who promulgate such tenuous nonsense should be not allowed to carry on.... It's offensive (lightly stated), especially to immigrants (who are gigantic contributors to American society) to hear such pervarication against their ancestrial livelihood and cultural history.

Barring her shrill voice and combative manner, Ms. Dalmia was well prepared to handle Mr. Kirkorian's arguments. His arguments are completely subjective. I remember the organization mentioned here in earlier comments. I saw an interview with one of their speakers on the Christian channel. Channel 30 that is. And in that interview, the talk was about Mexico taking over the United States. So you can imagine the conversation.
I think Ms. Dalmia read through Mr. Kirkorian's paranoia disguised under statistical reasoning.

If Ms. Dalmia shows up in some future diavlog, I would advice her to speak softly, not be so shrill, and let the other bloke make his/her point.

Quoting mvantony: But must such statements be racist and immoral? Must white people who utter them be racist and immoral? If the answer to these two questions is 'yes', then must it also be the case that a (racially) Japanese citizen of Japan who likes Japanese people and Japanese culture, and Japan's demographics, is also racist? Must a racially Indian citizen of India who cares about Indian people and likes India's demographics be racist? (Analogous questions can obviously be asked about lots of other peoples in other countries.)

--- Still, I believe the issue cries out for closer examination. Am I missing something obvious?

mvantony, I'm not horrified about what you posted. You are just articulating what lies underneath a more subtle form of discrimination by race and culture.
I agree with Wonderment that "discrimination" is biological coded. It allowed us, for example, to recognize the enemy in case of war between different groups. Once you understand and accept the fact that there is a genetically determined predisposition to discrimination, you have to do a little more work to understand the full implications of this. The next step is to think what characteristics define our affiliation to one

Stari Momak, "highly ethnocentric Indian woman (I don't care whose passport she has, she ain't American like me or George Washington) who obviously cares about getting more of her kind ('highly skilled' Indian H1-B's) into the country my ancestors built." "I like my country. I like its demographics, though they were better 20-30-40 years ago." "But screw all that, I like my own people and see no reason to surrender the country we built to third worlders." Bravo, Blogginheads commenters are a diverse lot. "people of 'Indian Descent' down to four generations can pretty much move there and work without any hassle" This is a very recent development. Infact inspired by American immigration law and dual citizenship policies of other countries. India used to be really closed barely over a decade ago.

Yes, I think you're missing the cultural and historical context.

Let's take a simple example.

CASE 1: An old German former Nazi Party member meets you in Berlin and says, "You know, Michael, I've always felt very creepy around Jews. There's something about you people that bothers me. I prefer living in my own country without Jews. You personally are an exception, of course. You're unlike most Jews."

CASE 2: An Israeli Holocaust survivor meets a nice German man on a visit to Berlin.. "You know, Hans, I've always felt very creepy around Germans. There's something about you people that bothers me. I prefer living in my own country without Germans. You personally are an exception, of course. You're unlike most Germans."

According to what you have previously stated, these are equivalent situations. Both the German and the Jew are equally ethnocentric (or not).

I don't think it follows from anything I wrote in my post that the two are equivalent, equally ethnocentric. I allowed (and believe), e.g., that many, or even most, whites who utter statements like "I like white folks" are in fact racists. I was just asking whether it must be the case that any white person who utters such a statement is a racist -- i.e., whether it would be possible for

Quoting mvantony: I don't think it follows from anything I wrote in my post that the two are equivalent, equally ethnocentric. I allowed (and believe), e.g., that many, or even most, whites who utter statements like "I like white folks" are in fact racists. I was just asking whether it must be the case that any white person who utters such a statement is a racist -- i.e., whether it would be possible for such a statement by a white person not to be racist, to be morally unobjectionable, just as it apparently can be for Japanese, Indians, blacks, etc.

I apologize for interjecting here, but did you read my post earlier today? It does address your question. Although on surface, it may seem that statements about liking white people are "neutral", these positions don't exist outside a context. When you put them in context and scratch the surface, you start to find the root of discrimination and its "potential" consequences. Trying to examine this in a technical, theoretical manner, separate from a historical context, is just an intellectual exercise, from which you can't draw any conclusions that can be applied to the real world. And it doesn't sanitize the public expression of this form of discrimination. It is

Quoting twin2jeremy: Why listen to Mr. K talk for an hour when it's painfully obvious that he will forfeit all reason. He has no credibility. And YES, people who promulgate such tenuous nonsense should be not allowed to carry on....

I like that "will forfeit," now your'e defending the PRE-EMPTIVE use of force to "win" political agruments--the other guy's so bad that we shouldn't even wait to shout him down, we should start shouting before he can start to spew his hate! That's certainly a different take on the bloggingheads formula. Really, though, why even use a taped video feed of the other person, why not just put up a picture of their face with a large red "no" circle drawn over it? Then your favored side could deliver their monologue in peace.
Oh, and for

Quoting twin2jeremy: It's offensive...to hear such pervarication against [immigrants'] ancestrial livlihood and cultural history

do you happen to have a dingalink-cite handy? I don't remember Kirkorian doing this...but it's possible I just didn't, you know, hear him.

Quoting Ocean:

I don't see what xenophobia has to do with it essentially. Surely lots of people who would like to restrict immigration highly value cultural/ethnic/racial diversity in their country (and so don't at all fear others who are "different"; quite the contrary). They just don't want a culture that is dominant in other countries to become dominant in theirs too. Nor do they want immigrants (when their numbers get large enough) to repeatedly push for cultural changes in the direction of their culture of origin.

I read your posts and I realize that you are indeed struggling to define what it is that bothers you. However, after reading, I must say, it sounds like typical xenophobia. The fact that it's so difficult to articulate, makes it the more likely. Since you deny this is the case, can you tell us, why you think the above is not xenophobia?

First, it's implausible to think that the very fact that I'm struggling to articulate my views on these issues makes it more likely that I'm xenophobic than not. Might it not be that the morally correct position to adopt on these matters is more complex

Ten or so minutes into the conversation I'm hearing Shikha engaging in a bit of obfuscation over the meaning of "foreign born". Once it became apparent that Mark is excluding children of foreign born parents living on their own Shikha's real concern surfaces, which I gather is her personal umbrage at being called "foreign born" even though she is a naturalized citizen. My advice for her is to just 'get over it'.

Quoting Exeus99: I like that "will forfeit," now your'e defending the PRE-EMPTIVE use of force to "win" political agruments--the other guy's so bad that we shouldn't even wait to shout him down, we should start shouting before he can start to spew his hate! That's certainly a different take on the bloggingheads formula.

Oh, and for do you happen to have a dingalink-cite handy? I don't remember Kirkorian doing this...but it's possible I just didn't, you know, hear him.

I will defend my earlier assertions by clarifying them. It is not ok to "shout..down" some one in a political dialogue, that defeats the point. On the other hand, I have a low tolerance for offensive language, euphemized as intellectual discourse. A brillant professor told me, "You don't debate your [people's] humanity." What does he mean by that...when Mr K. announces that immigrants have no place in our society, when the fruits of their labor is manifold, perpetual, ubiquitous and, in no way, inconspicuous... ....He undermines and challenges their value as people. To debate him would assume that he has legitmacy to claim that a certain people aren't fit for our way of life, when they were fundamental to its development. All people are an autonomous centers of value and

Quoting eric: I wish I could have heard Krikorian's argument ... she belabored points endlessly, and didn't let him speak much. Not very informative.

I totally agree. Beside a couple of good points she made-that were sufficiently address by Mark-she was an emotional basket case.

Wikipedia definition: Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign people. As with all phobias, a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to genuinely think or believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner. This arguably separates xenophobia from racism and ordinary prejudice in that someone of a different race does not necessarily have to be of a different nationality. In various contexts, the terms "xenophobia" and "racism" seem to be used interchangeably, though they can have wholly different meanings (xenophobia can be based on various aspects, racism being based solely on race and ancestry). For xenophobia there are two main objects of the phobia. The first is a population group present within a society that is not considered part of that society. Often they are recent immigrants, but xenophobia may be directed against a group which has been present for centuries. This form of xenophobia can elicit or facilitate hostile and violent reactions, such as mass expulsion of immigrants, or in the worst case, genocide. The second form of xenophobia is primarily

But it still doesn't answer whether it's possible for a white person to make a statement like the commenter did that's no more objectionable morally than comparable statements made by Japanese or Indians. Nor does it give us a very good idea of what the probabilities are here. Is it 80% likely such a white person is a racist? 95%? 99.99%? Is it possible that one out of every ten white people who say such things aren't racist? If it is possible, should we automatically brand white people who say such things as racists? These sorts of questions, I think, are still left open by what's been said so far.

Well, it's best not to use terms like "racist" at all, if we want to approach an analysis of the attitudes scientifically. It's problematical shorthand, I will certainly concede. But we can look at examples. Here is one. If we have a Japanese infant and a white infant, both of whom want to play exclusively with dolls that look like them and their kinfolk, I think it would be absurd to call them racist 3-year-olds. However, in a society that has racial conflict, it would be a very

It may (or may not) be helpful to put the cards on the table and talk about Israel and Palestine. I would dispute some of your assumptions, if we apply your principles on the ground.

I had in mind a case in which (a) a minority increases in population within a society by means we can assume to be moral; (b) the minority demands greater cultural representation within the society to an extent that begins to threaten the continued existence of the dominant culture; (c) the minority identifies with a culture that happens to be flourishing (e.g., dominant) elsewhere on the globe; and (d) the dominant culture in the society is not represented in any significant way (e.g., dominant) elsewhere on Earth.

"A" seems clear. "B," however, carries the loaded term "threaten" and implies and grave existential threat ("continued existence..."). C and D are carry questionable premises. This all seems predicates on the assumption of perpetual conflict. Just as people predicted "race wars" in the USA if integration were tried, people in Israel foresee all kinds of doom and extinction if power is shared with Arabs. But here in the USA no "race war" materialized because conflict was defused through compromise, redress of grievances, reconciliation and

Quoting Wonderment: It may (or may not) be helpful to put the cards on the table and talk about Israel and Palestine.

Israel should look to successful models of binational or multicultural societies. If you build the field of dreams, they will come.

If, however, you are convinced that only the status quo will prevent your extinction and it must be defended to the death with everything from Apartheid to nuclear bombs, you can self-fulfill that prophecy as well.

And now that "the cards are on the table" (thank you, Wonderment for the clarification), I can add, although as a total outsider on this topic, that the Israeli-Palestinian situation has many more levels of geopolitical implications, well beyond the discussion of culture, race, religion or ethnicity. I wouldn't even try to go there. Too complex for me. I do agree with Wonderment's general sentiment, though.

Quoting Ocean: Now, you bring up the issue of "liking" your own group or culture. On surface, you could argue there's nothing wrong with that, and also say that white people liking whites (race) is the same as, say, Japanese people liking Japanese (culture).

My reason for choosing Japanese and Indians for my examples (as opposed to Swiss or Syrians, e.g.) is that racial characteristics line up pretty closely with national/cultural ones (though more in the case of Japan than India). So it's arguable that a Japanese person who expresses positive feelings for his or her people is saying something with more racial content (and not merely cultural content) than would be a British or Swiss person saying something comparable. Certainly an African American expressing positive feelings toward other African Americans would be. That said, I think the fact that race and culture are mixed up in the Japanese/Indian/African-American cases, in a way they often aren't in the white case, may be key to answering what was puzzling me. A way to see this is to notice that although it doesn't seem bad for a Japanese person to express positive feelings for (racially/culturally) Japanese

I do not mean to suggest at all that Michael was trying to conceal this. He just probably thought a hypothetical discussion might be fruitful and less emotional. I agree. But we also shed some light on the issues by discussing a geo-political reality.

Quoting Wonderment: I do not mean to suggest at all that Michael was trying to conceal this.

He just probably thought a hypothetical discussion might be fruitful and less emotional. I agree.

But we also shed some light on the issues by discussing a geo-political reality.

I guess we would have to let Michael tell us if that's the case. I was wondering what the "agenda" was. The problem with hypothetical discussions is that you are not presenting all the arguments that may be relevant. Trying to neutralize the topic, you omit aspects that can be, in someone else's opinion very central to the issues at hand. As you may have noticed I think it's extremely important that we challenge all our assumptions, particularly those subtle tones that go unnoticed underground. Because they aren't all that obvious we tend to neglect them and not challenge them. Unfortunately, they can come up full-force when elicited by the appropriate triggers. It's very difficult to notice our own contradictions. It's a constant struggle, but a worthy one!

Unless you are talking about an endangered "mini culture", it is not OK, and it is not morally OK to talk about dominance.

In addition expressing your opinions, you should try to provide some reasons for them. That said, why does the threat have to be to a "mini-culture" to warrant concern? After all, a threat is a threat. Regarding the word 'dominance', it's a technical term used by sociologists and other academics when discussing nationality, ethnicity, culture, etc. It doesn't mean "better" or "non-caring" or "callous" Just factual, non-evaluative things like biggest, most salient, most prominent in the society, etc.

What do you mean by the morality of the population growth of the (illegal) minority? Do people need to belong to a certain cultural group to be able to reproduce? Perhaps you should propose massive sterilization of illegal immigrants... Does that remind you of other historical events in the past century? Who gives you the right to decide who can reproduce "morally" or not?

I had in mind things like immoral cases of illegal immigration (notice that I'm not ruling out the possibility of moral illegal immigration), not births to illegal immigrants.

(b) the minority demands greater cultural representation within the society to an

Michael, You said:

...the minority demands greater cultural representation within the society to an extent that begins to threaten the continued existence of the dominant culture;

minority: you are referring to another culture (foreign people), and your previous examples included race as well, non- "white"', threaten the continued existence: it denotes fear dominant culture: the one you seem to "defend" and believe to be endangered. "Dominant" used as predominant, and for the time being, in this country, "white". Whatever meaning you are giving to that. Again definition:
Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign people. As with all phobias, a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to genuinely think or believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner. If you still don't see it, in this extremely simplified form, I give up. It must be because I'm foreign born, and perhaps my ideas are to be feared.

Steve D
"So he can't go around denying what everyone knows to be the case, namely, that the U.S. was mainly built by slaves and racialized immigrants, after it was stolen from indigenous people. White people just pointed the guns at everyone else and, on that basis, extorted enormous wealth from the people doing the real work." Well, first we see where Steve D is coming from, i.e. a white folks hating background. He seems especially angry at 'old stock' white folks, the kind that gave him this country. Indeed, he's so brainwashed I suspect that 'SteveD' might actually be 'Uncle' Tim Wise in sock puppet form. And of course SteveD's comments have exactly zero to do with Krikorian's argument, just as this Hindu woman's comments had nearly nothing to do with his argument. But error must be corrected. No, Americans didn't 'steal' from the 'native Americans' , we conquered it. Yeah, it sucks, but that is the way every single nation in the world (except maybe Iceland) has come about. And indeed, archeology is finding that maybe the 'native Americans' stole it from some other group. Plug Kennewick man into your favorite search engine. Nor does 'everyone know' that slaves and 'racialized' immigrants built America. Surely the African slaves helped, but

Quoting Wonderment: I do not mean to suggest at all that Michael was trying to conceal this.

He just probably thought a hypothetical discussion might be fruitful and less emotional. I agree.

But we also shed some light on the issues by discussing a geo-political reality.

No, of course I wasn't trying to conceal this. I talk about Israel/Palestine in the comments here all the time. The truth is, however, Israel was not on my mind most of the time as I was writing my posts; I was thinking more of European countries like the UK and France, and the United States. The diavlog, let's not forget, was about immigration in the US, but also related general issues. Of course, Israel is why I spend as much time as I do thinking about ethnicity, culture, nationality, etc. My reason for wanting to think abstractly about the issues is to develop a general and principled position that can be applied across the board, not just to Israel's case. I admit that in writing some of the posts here, I wondered a few times whether what I'm saying is applicable to Israel's case. But I'm going to have to save checking that out for a later time, as well as reading

Quoting stari_momak: ....Nor does 'everyone know' that slaves and 'racialized' immigrants built America. Surely the African slaves helped, but hardly crucial (look at Australia -- prospered in a much harsher climate without Africans -- that's why its the 'happy country') And the US went through huge periods of very very low immigration, and during must of its history the bulk of immigrants were from northwest Europe, i.e not racialized). (and please, none of this 'Irish not being white bs', its been debunked , heck, just read Gone with the Wind')

... Eventually whites are gonna get it, America is now an ethnic/racial spoils game.

To conclude this ramble, I'd ask wonderment, who seems to be a Jew, whether he thinks that letting, say, 10 million Mexican Catholics settle in Israel might change the very nature of that state, and whether if that occurred whether something would be lost.

What a collection of racist crap! What are you afraid of losing exactly?
What advantage do you find in being a non-racialized northwestern European creature?
What great accomplishments could you attribute to this non-racialized group that you talk about? Be careful, don't start mixing races and ethnicities in Europe.
How many European groups do you consider to

And of course SteveD's comments have exactly zero to do with Krikorian's argument, just as this Hindu woman's comments had nearly nothing to do with his argument.

How do you know she's Hindu?

it is in whites and only in whites (worldwide) that this tendency is deemed threatening and the target of much government activity.

Sort of a white man's burden, you might say.

To conclude this ramble, I'd ask wonderment, who seems to be a Jew, whether he thinks that letting, say, 10 million Mexican Catholics settle in Israel might change the very nature of that state, and whether if that occurred whether something would be lost.

Well, proportionately that would be like roughly 400,000,000 Mexicans moving to the USA. Since there are only about 100,000,000 Mexicans living in Mexico, the scenario is a bit unlikely. But if you're asking would something American be lost if we had another say 20,000,000 Mexicans here in the US, the answer is no. I'd worry about the economic integration, of course, but I wouldn't give a moment's thought to cultural consequences. As for Israel, the equivalent of 10,000,000 Mexicans (roughly 3% of our population) would be 180,000 non-Jewish immigrants. Hopefully, Israel will welcome many more Palestinian refugees

Quoting mvantony: My reason for choosing Japanese and Indians for my examples (as opposed to Swiss or Syrians, e.g.) is that racial characteristics line up pretty closely with national/cultural ones (though more in the case of Japan than India). So it's arguable that a Japanese person who expresses positive feelings for his or her people is saying something with more racial content (and not merely cultural content) than would be a British or Swiss person saying something comparable. Certainly an African American expressing positive feelings toward other African Americans would be.

That said, I think the fact that race and culture are mixed up in the Japanese/Indian/African-American cases, in a way they often aren't in the white case, may be key to answering what was puzzling me.

A way to see this is to notice that although it doesn't seem bad for a Japanese person to express positive feelings for (racially/culturally) Japanese people, it would seem pretty racist (if one can imagine such a thing) for a Japanese person to express positive sentiments toward Asian people (in the sense in which 'Asian' is used in US -- i.e., as including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thai, etc., but

Quoting Ocean: Again definition:
Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign people.

As with all phobias, a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to genuinely think or believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner.

If you still don't see it, in this extremely simplified form, I give up. It must be because I'm foreign born, and perhaps my ideas are to be feared.

People from the minority culture need not be strangers or unknown. They needn't even be thought of as foreigners. Consider measures French Canadians have taken in Canada to protect French culture in Quebec from English-speaking Canadians whom the French believe pose a threat to their culture (such as prohibiting English signs in store windows and the like). French Canadians surely don't view English speaking Canadians as foreigners. All are Canadians, and there have been English speakers in Quebec (e.g., Montreal) forever. No strangers, nothing unknown. So the definition of xenophobia doesn't apply here at all. Still, the dominant French culture in Quebec is felt to be threatened by English culture. To be sure, there is

"As for rgijia's comment about India's openness, its economy has been opening up -- I'm all for that. But at the same time its immigration policy has become more restrictive for *non Indian* people as time has gone on. The 'Person of Indian Origin Visa" is explicitly racist. The vast majority of people of Indian descent in the US would qualify, but not their non-Indian fellow citizens." Thats rgajria my friend. I am not defending India's closeness. India's immigration policy has always been restrictive. It has not become more restrictive or less.

Wonderment, How do you know she's Hindu? Shikha Dalmia, I am pretty certain she is. She may be an atheist or an agnostic, that would not be incompatible with Hinduism. Her first and last name are Hindu.

Sorry about the misspelling rgajria. If you go to wikipedia (not the best source by hey) you can see India tightening its already tight immigration policies. "Any person born in India on or after 26 January 1955 but prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India by birth. A person born in India on or after 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India if either parent was a citizen of India at the time of the birth. Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or if one parent is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth." India has every right to do this, but in that case, so does every Western nation. Ocean seems to think that there is no such thing as white American culture. This is a common tactic of the 'critical whiteness studies' crowd. I disagree and so would just about every American from before the revolution to say, 1970 or so. Here is

On two- versus one-state solutions for Israel/Palestine, among other topics.

"Ocean's "denial that that culture even exits betrays deep animosity to the historical and yes, especially to the white American nation.

Your concept of a "white American nation" is a grotesque idea that reeks of the KKK. White pride is a hideous ideology befitting of prison gangs and the most illiterate of angry teenage boys. Grow up and use your obvious intelligence for something less hateful and destructive. And it's not Antonio Villa; it's Villaraigosa.

Quoting stari_momak: Ocean seems to think that there is no such thing as white American culture. This is a common tactic of the 'critical whiteness studies' crowd.
......

"Ocean's "denial that that culture even exits betrays deep animosity to the historical and yes, especially to the white American nation.

My animosity is elicited by racism, xenophobia and bigotry in general. When these come from a predominant privileged majority, the more I revolt. The "White American Nation", is certainly not as homogeneous as brethren John Jay fantasized it to be. One religion? One culture? It all depends on what White America you are talking about. Irish and Italians were rejected by the established white culture when they massively immigrated in the past century. Catholics!
What about Jews? Would White America be ready for a Jewish President? What about ten years ago? Are all the above groups white or non-white? What about "Hispanics" who are Caucasian? How would you classify them? How should I be classified? By race or by origin? If a brethren has ideals of unity, better start embracing diversity and integration. Racism, xenophobia and intolerance only create separation.

Of course, other groups don't have any qualms about asserting cultural/racial pride and political power. Do you

Quoting stari_momak: Sorry about the misspelling rgajria.

India has every right to do this, but in that case, so does every Western nation.

This part I agree with. I lean heavily toward a more restrictive immigration policy, including modifying the constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to anyone born here, which was introduced to protect the rights of blacks in this country.

Ocean seems to think that there is no such thing as white American culture.

You are conflating the European origins of American political institutions and culture qua culture. That is a mistake. If you just take southern culture, that is every bit of a 'black thang' as it is white. (e.g. food, speech, etc.)

Quoting Wonderment: Your concept of a "white American nation" is a grotesque idea that reeks of the KKK.

White pride is a hideous ideology befitting of prison gangs and the most illiterate of angry teenage boys. Grow up and use your obvious intelligence for something less hateful and destructive.

Wonderment,
Although I don't want to challenge the main thrust of what you've said, I do want to bring the following to your attention: According to Eric Kaufmann, of Birkbeck College, University of London, "white American nation" is in fact a quite accurate description of the United States from its founding all the way up until the 1960's, though it no longer applies. His argument is spelled out in his book (which I havent read), The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America: The Decline of Dominant Ethnicity in the United States (Harvard University Press, 2004); and a shorter version of the argument appears in his 2000 paper (which I'm reading) "Ethnic or Civic Nation: Theorizing the American Case." Here's the abstract from his paper:

The United States has often been viewed by ethnicity and nationalism scholars as the quintessential civic nation historically defined by its commitment to eighteenth century

Instead, the United States, for nearly its entire existence, is shown to be an ethnic nation characterized by non-conformist Protestantism and pre-Norman, Anglo-Saxon genealogy. This self-styled 'American' ethnie sought to reshape the nation in its own image and saw its destiny in Puritan, millennial terms. Faced with large flows of non-British immigrants, the 'Americans' employed techniques of Anglo-conformity in an attempt to transform the newcomers into 'WASP's.

I suppose the reason that 'American' rates the scare quotes is that the author does acknowledge the existence of Native Americans, Africans (free and slave), Mexicans, Asians, Jews, etc. They would dispute the contention that they didn't really form part of the American project. True, they were denied access to WASP wealth and power (which is what justifies many forms of affirmative action today), but they did participate in the emergence and development of the culture. What's insulting coming from thinly disguised white supremacists like Stari Monak is the notion that "whites" (WASPs?) did all the heavy lifting and somehow "own" the accomplishments. That's a historical lie and a kind of retroactive cultural genocide. It's especially disturbing to hear in a country that is healing from the wounds of slavery, segregation, Indian genocide and

@Gritz and Gravy You are of course right that Southern Culture and American culture more generally have been influence by African culture, and so be it. Slavery was a mistake for all sorts of reasons, moral and economic and cultural, but I don't think we can deny that blacks have made a large contribution to what America is. But it doesn't follow from that that there is no such thing as a white American nation. Prairie Home companion, punk rock (in my day) emo (now) NASCAR, etc are all part of that subset of American culture that is overwhelmingly white. Wonderment chooses to label me a 'white supremacist' and then contradicts himself by claiming that there is no such category as white. (I consider myself white nationalist). How then could I be a white supremacist? More importantly, how could the very same people that founded the US? Look at the first nationalization law, the first militia law, etc. All made reference to white people. Moreover Wonderment's argument presumably could be applied to all self-identified groups. What does a secular Israeli Jew have to do with a necon think-tanker in Washington and what do either have to

I agree that Stari Monak is in all likelihood a white supremacist. If he isn't, he should be working much harder than he is to distinguish himself from them. [ADDED: Oops, I see that Stari Monak has just posted. I'll check whether I need to take back anything I've said.] He strikes me as a more sophisticated version of people who used to comment on Frank Welter's YouTube channel "Zionist News," before Weltner got suspended. (Weltner founded the anti-Semitic web site "Jew Watch" -- which, notoriously, always comes up in the first two or three results of a Google search for 'Jew'.)

I suppose the reason that 'American' rates the scare quotes is that the author does acknowledge the existence of Native Americans, Africans (free and slave), Mexicans, Asians, Jews, etc.

Yes, the purpose of the scare quotes is probably to mark the fact (and remind us, if necessary) that the term's meaning was different then than it is now. In any event, there's no doubt that Kaufmann acknowledges the existence and contributions of the people's you mention -- Kaufmann is a serious and respected scholar. But his topic is what Americans (i.e, people to whom the term 'American' was commonly applied) thought. Here's a relevant passage from the paper:

Many scholars would concur with the view that an American sense of

Quoting stari_momak: Wonderment chooses to label me a 'white supremacist' and then contradicts himself by claiming that there is no such category as white. (I consider myself white nationalist). How then could I be a white supremacist? More importantly, how could the very same people that founded the US? Look at the first nationalization law, the first militia law, etc. All made reference to white people.

Well, what's your concept of "whiteness"? It's surely not just skin color, right? Presumably, light-skinned Jews (like the kind I am, with blue eyes, and skin that turns pink in the sun) wouldn't count. Nor would it make a difference if a Jew's name (like mine: Antony -- shortened by my paternal grandfather from Antonofsky) and mastery of the "common American culture" made it such that reliably identifying him or her as a Jew was difficult or impossible for most people. So it's not just skin color plus common culture either. If that's right, then what's still missing in your concept of "white"? A link to Christianity? If so, I'm guessing that not just any link will do, since a "white" Jew who converts to Christianity and masters whatever cultural elements are required still isn't really white, correct? I imagine a genetic link to

Quoting mvantony: Well, what's your concept of "whiteness"? It's surely not just skin color, right? Presumably, light-skinned Jews (like the kind I am, with blue eyes, and skin that turns pink in the sun) wouldn't count. Nor would it make a difference if a Jew's name (like mine: Antony -- shortened by my paternal grandfather from Antonofsky) and mastery of the "common American culture" made it such that reliably identifying him or her as a Jew was difficult or impossible for most people. So it's not just skin color plus common culture either. If that's right, then what's still missing in your concept of "white"? A link to Christianity? If so, I'm guessing that not just any link will do, since a "white" Jew who converts to Christianity and masters whatever cultural elements are required still isn't really white, correct? I imagine a genetic link to something other than mere skin color is required. (Some Christian ancestral link? Maybe, so long as it's not all the way back to Jesus, since that gets you to Jews again). But, in any case, please you tell me how you understand your concept "white."

Another question: You say you like your country's demographics (even though it was better 20 or 30 years

Quoting Ocean: I'm glad that you are starting to see what the real problem is.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to. But whatever it is, does it mean I'm not xenophobic anymore?

Quoting stari_momak: @Gritz and Gravy
But it doesn't follow from that that there is no such thing as a white American nation. Prairie Home companion, punk rock (in my day) emo (now) NASCAR, etc are all part of that subset of American culture that is overwhelmingly white.

The ideas of a white american culture and white american nation are two different things, with the latter being a much more contested notion. To talk about a "white nation" is to relegate non-whites to second class citizens, not to mention remind people why 'whiteness' was constructed in the first place. There would be no whiteness without blackness. So I can refer back to Hegal's master/slave dialectic to question the boundaries and normative claims of your idea of a white nation.

Quoting mvantony: I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to. But whatever it is, does it mean I'm not xenophobic anymore?

mvantony, When you challenged stari-momak's concept of "whiteness", you detailed the multiple problems intrinsic to coming up with such definitions. The boundaries of whiteness are artificial, as you described in your post. It arbitrarily appears to exclude certain groups, but it isn't clear how that happens. You also seemed to make reference to the potential consequences that could be derived from wanting to protect a particular group while rejecting others. This is a paragraph you wrote in response to stari-momak:

Another question: You say you like your country's demographics (even though it was better 20 or 30 years ago). Aside from wanting to place severe restrictions on future non-white immigration, and wanting to rid Jews of the enormous control they have over your country (through AIPAC, controlling the media, etc. -- see Mearsheimer and Walt), what additional changes within the United States does your white nationalism lead you to wish to see occur?

Unless I'm misreading you, you are questioning stari-momak, because his attitude towards those that he identifies as non-white, is similar to the kinds

Wikipedia is as good a source as any. Again, I am not defending India's closed immigration policies. You are using it as an example to defend a certain policy for these United States. Steve D's opinion about the history of the United States sounds very close to Howard Zinn's interpretation of history. Sad!

Gritz and Gravy I doesn't follow that because a country has a predominant culture associated with one of its population groups, that members of other population groups are then second class citizens in the political sense. Malays and Indians in Singapore who are citizens have full political rights, even though Singapore is basically a Han Chinese city-state that has various policies to keep it that way. Your formulation would deny any majority population the right to maintain its demographics and have its culture reflected in national institutions. Moreover, as it stands, I think there is a good case to be made that whites are distinctly second class citizens. 65 percent of the population identifies as non-Hispanic white (down from 85% 30 years ago), yet only 10 percent of legal immigrants are white -- and that is not for lack of candidates, there are literally millions, probably 10s of millions of eastern europeans who would like to immigrate but can't because they are frozen out by third world chain migration. White kid are taught to hate the history of the country their ancestors built --the great heros are being airbrushed out

Quoting stari_momak: I doesn't follow that because a country has a predominant culture associated with one of its population groups, that members of other population groups are then second class citizens in the political sense. Malays and Indians in Singapore who are citizens have full political rights, even though Singapore is basically a Han Chinese city-state that has various policies to keep it that way. Your formulation would deny any majority population the right to maintain its demographics and have its culture reflected in national institutions.

I agree with you that it doesn't follow, though it's also true that minority groups in such circumstances frequently are treated as second-class citizens. It all comes down to the details (including the not-so-straightforward question of how "second-class" is to be understood; e.g., does the fact that Friday is the Muslim sabbath make Muslims second-class citizens in countries in which Friday is a workday? If not, why not?).

I think there is a good case to be made that whites are distinctly second class citizens. 65 percent of the population identifies as non-Hispanic white (down from 85% 30 years ago), yet only 10 percent of legal immigrants are

I wrote a long answer to you mvanthony, but it seems to have vanished into the ether. Basically, I said that white is both biological and a matter of self identification. As to Jews, I'd say the vast amount self identify as white, they are lumped in with the rest of the white population by the state as far as affirmative action. At the same time there is a significant minority that seem uncomfortable with the majority culture, a significant minority that don't like, say, intermarriage with white gentiles (Elliot Abrams wrote a book about that and there are a ton of Jdate type services), and a small minority that is pretty much hostile to the majority culture (see Hebe magazine and the SPLC)

Quoting stari_momak: Gritz and Gravy

I[t] doesn't follow that because a country has a predominant culture associated with one of its population groups, that members of other population groups are then second class citizens in the political sense.

Yes, I agree. But that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about inscribing preferential treatment in law for the majority racial group, i.e. policies and practices that ensure the numerical and/or political supremacy of the majority racial group. We are not really talking about culture because, culturally speaking, a white southerner has more in common with a black southerner than a eastern european straight off the boat. Your argument really boils down to a racialist one, if not racist.

Quoting Ocean: It may be that we just fundamentally disagree or that we are not succeeding in communicating effectively. One way or the other, I think we should stop the discussion. There aren't all that many more ways that you or I can expose our views.
Feel free to have the last word. And thank you for your interest in this topic.

I agree we should stop the conversation for now. But I do want to thank you for your questions and challenges. They've provided opportunities for me to think more about issues that are important to me. And now, I'll accept your offer to have the last word, and take one last crack at this. In most of my replies to your posts, I've been focusing on your apparent view that wishing to preserve and protect one's culture in the face of threats posed to it by minorities within the same society is, in itself, necessarily, ipso facto, etc. xenophobic, immoral, "somehow bad." I agree that sometimes people who wish to protect their culture from threats posed to it by minorities are xenophobic, immoral, etc. That's obvious. I just deny that there's anything necessary about it, and I believe that in some cases, maybe even

"But that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about inscribing preferential treatment in law for the majority racial group, i.e. policies and practices that ensure the numerical and/or political supremacy of the majority racial group." It may be racialist, but if so surely it isn't blameworthy. First, no country outside of 'the West' is willing to see its demographics dramatically altered, and even the Western Europeans are having second thoughts. India, Japan, Singapore, even South African blacks recently rioted against immigrants -- of their own race! Second, it it is blameworthy, surely the attempts by other racial/ethnic groups to dramatically alter the demographics of a specific polity in favor of their own group. La Raza pushes immigration in general, but really concentrates on 'Latino' immigration, the biggest single user of H1-Bs by far is Infosys, and Indian-based and run company. You want to wager that 90%+ of those H1-Bs are going to Indians? Indeed, I think that is what is really motivating the woman on this video. It seems to me that basically using the US -- contrary to popular belief one of the oldest polities in the world in terms of legal order and present boundaries -- for lebensraum

Its nice to see an honest Zionist, i.e one that accords to the other nations of the world the same thing he / she feels about Israel. There are a few out there, one is Anthony Smith, (despite the name he is Jewish) author of National Identity.

And to clarify further for mvanthony yes, there is a specific American culture that was until very recently associated mostly with white folks. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, etc. That is, US culture is not some tabula rasa. Surely it has and will continue to change, but the present population has the right to guide those changes as its sees fit. Interestingly but not surprisingly, some of the greatest works celebrating and formalizing that culture were created by Jews. I am thinking Aaron Copeland's compositions, Oscar and Hammerstein (what is more recognizably American than either Carousel or Oklahoma!) . I am not sure such composers etc. exist today.

mvantony, You are "making me" pick up this thread again! But this time, I want to praise your determination to fully understand the issues involved here. I think this is definitely a very important topic considering the state of tension across the world due to massive movement of various people from country to country and because of the increasing polarization originated, among other factors, by religious fundamentalism. I think you and I have a problem with the very definition of xenophobia. So, perhaps, it's better to leave that word aside. It seems to me, though, that you may be saying that it's plausible that there is a form of what I call xenophobia, that isn't morally wrong. But, it's better to drop the term all together, as it appears to be inflammatory. Just for clarification, I don't think that minorities need to be celebrated. I advocate that they are respected and not seen as a threat. And now I'll try to articulate the principles that drive my position.
I think we all share certain attributes inherent to being human beings. That is what I will call our "sameness". If you stick to those basic attributes we have to recognize that we are all facing

I do think that the sorts of issues we're talking about here are among the deepest and most difficult that humans face.

Well, maybe so, but that doesn't mean there is no simple answer. I tend to agree with Ocean on this -- the best approach to ethnic identity, immigration, cultural autonomy problems is from a human rights perspective. Human rights trump nationalism and ethnocentrism. No culture is worth preserving at the expense of another culture. Gandhi had this figured out 70 years ago. He said the real challenge was to live nonviolently without clinging to ethnic, religious and national identities when life/death, war/peace, freedom/oppression are hanging in the balance. He was right. Peace and social justice are more important than any culture's dominance of another. People need to learn to live together. Ethnic nationalism is an unsustainable ideology. Which is why I'm not a Zionist and why I believe that Zionism is a failed ideology. Immigration seems to me to be a kind of red herring. It's not the real issue. If you look at the push and pull forces generating immigration, solutions emerge that are consistent with social, economic and environmental justice. If you address those core

Quoting stari_momak: "But that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about inscribing preferential treatment in law for the majority racial group, i.e. policies and practices that ensure the numerical and/or political supremacy of the majority racial group."

It may be racialist, but if so surely it isn't blameworthy. First, no country outside of 'the West' is willing to see its demographics dramatically altered, and even the Western Europeans are having second thoughts. India, Japan, Singapore, even South African blacks recently rioted against immigrants -- of their own race!

This is the fatal flaw in your argument. Whites in America are NOT like Germans, Italians, black South Africans, and a host of other peoples that genuinely comprise a nation-state. Whites, like whites in south africa or australia, are settler populations who usurped the indigenous folks' land. As Dick Gregory said in the 70s, whites saying they discovered America is like me walking past your car, with you in it, only to stop and say, 'ah, what a nice car, I guess I'll 'discover' it. You cannot steal something outright and legitimatly claim you're its rightful owner. (Please don't tell me you stole it fair and square.) You can favor immigration restrictions without resorting to a racialist argument.

As to

@Gritz and Gravy I don't agree that that whites in America aren't like peoples elsewhere. (1) Every country, if you go back far enough, has experience conquest. England used to be inhabited by basically the Welsh. They got conquered. In northern Japan the Ainu were dominant, not anymore(2) The founders didn't think that they were some sort of universal nation. Even the very Declaration of Independence, the Cato-type libertarians favorite document, talks about the Indian Savages and (more cryptically) slave insurrections. Unfortunate as this may be, that's the history (3) Up until very recently white Americans, and particular 'old stock' Americans, had no trouble seeing America as basically a white country with some racial minorities. Indians were treated as sovereign nations (as they still are, look at the Casinos) No, historically the old stock, white population didn't seem themselves as some 'proposition nation'. They didn't think that we had the duty to take in everybody, or to be a Brazil north which is what we are becoming. Why do I stress white nationalism? (1) Its the 'most repulsive argument' -- so if you can get 'correct thinkers' thinking about it, then they will start thinking about other aspects of American culture and immigration (2) any immigration restrictionist

Ok, so the converstation hasn't ended! :-)

Quoting Ocean: Just for clarification, I don't think that minorities need to be celebrated. I advocate that they are respected and not seen as a threat.

Even when they really do threaten to wipe out, or radically alter, a culture? -- what would almost certainly happen to the Quebecois culture if, e.g., English-speaking Canadians started moving to Quebec en masse and insisting that their cultural elements get equal representation in Quebec's provincial and municipal institutions (government, education, language, etc.), and in popular culture (food, fashion, art, radio, tv, etc.). Or do you think that such a thing would be impossible? (Surely you can't think that!) Or do you think that, although such things are possible, they shouldn't be conceived negatively as threats, but rather more positively (i.e., the Quebecois should welcome such changes)? Which? Or is there another option I've missed?

I think we all share certain attributes inherent to being human beings. That is what I will call our "sameness". If you stick to those basic attributes we have to recognize that we are all facing similar challenges for our survival in this planet. Whether we talk about environment, wars, illnesses, etc, we are all equally exposed and vulnerable to them.

I find little to disagree with here

You keep getting lost in detail. You won't understand what I said before, and even less so be able to reject it, unless you step back, come out of the tribe mode of thinking, and look at the essential elements of the issue. You said before that this topic is confusing to you. I'll tell you why. You need to synthesize. There is always this side and that side. Even when it's important to consider both and each, you need to grasp the totality. I'm sorry if I'm being too abstract. I would invite you to stick your head out of the branches and look at the forest. If you can't do that, this dialogue is futile. Perhaps we need to table this until a better time...

Quoting Wonderment:

I do think that the sorts of issues we're talking about here are among the deepest and most difficult that humans face.

Well, maybe so, but that doesn't mean there is no simple answer.

Well, I suspect there is no simple answer, at least none we're currently aware of. But I may be wrong about this.

I tend to agree with Ocean on this -- the best approach to ethnic identity, immigration, cultural autonomy problems is from a human rights perspective. Human rights trump nationalism and ethnocentrism.

I think the deep problem concerns relations between human groups and communities generally, not just for nations, ethnicities, cultures and religions, but also for subcultures, organizations of various sorts, subpopulations (of some city or region, e.g.), and smaller groups as well. It seems to me that we need something like an ethics or moral theory (or perhaps a family of such theories) for human groups. (For all I know there already exist such theories.) Groups have very different properties from individual humans: they grow and shrink very differently from humans, the types and quantities of material requirements needed to sustain a group's existence over time vary enormously from group to group, unlike with individuals, etc. Because of differences like

Quoting Ocean: You keep getting lost in detail. You won't understand what I said before, and even less so be able to reject it, unless you step back, come out of the tribe mode of thinking, and look at the essential elements of the issue. You said before that this topic is confusing to you. I'll tell you why. You need to synthesize. There is always this side and that side. Even when it's important to consider both and each, you need to grasp the totality. I'm sorry if I'm being too abstract. I would invite you to stick your head out of the branches and look at the forest. If you can't do that, this dialogue is futile.

Perhaps we need to table this until a better time...

I'm not lost in detail. I'm not in a tribal mode of thinking (e.g., my main reason for valuing distinct cultures concerns how they benefit humanity as a whole.) All along you've gotten me completely wrong. You seem to view me as a bigot and racist, and have insulted me more than a few times as a result of your misconceptions. I've tried to explain myself -- not always

Michael, I will start by saying that I think -- to some degree -- that Ocean makes a fair criticism. Given my distaste for Zionism and all other forms of nationalism (I watch the Olympics every four years and get the impression that it's always Berlin in 1936), it seems to me that you are overcomplicating the issue because you don't want to accept the implications of the simple solutions. It reminds me a little of creationists, who elaborate complex theories to dispute evolution. They may be a lot smarter and even better educated about biology, chemistry and physics than people who simply accept what they're taught in high school science class, but at the end of the day, it's the 14-year-old C student who could explain natural selection in two sentences who got it right. But let's see if I can overcome that initial prejudice and go a little deeper.

I think the deep problem concerns relations between human groups and communities generally, not just for nations, ethnicities, cultures and religions, but also for subcultures, organizations of various sorts, subpopulations (of some city or region, e.g.), and smaller groups as well.

I agree. The larger issue is conflict resolution

Quoting stari_momak: @Gritz and Gravy

I don't agree that that whites in America aren't like peoples elsewhere. (1) Every country, if you go back far enough, has experience conquest. England used to be inhabited by basically the Welsh. They got conquered. In northern Japan the Ainu were dominant, not anymore . . . (3) Up until very recently white Americans, and particular 'old stock' Americans, had no trouble seeing America as basically a white country with some racial minorities.

The European conquest of North America was unique in many respects. For one thing, it wasn't very clear at all for all of the 17th century what kind of nation early American colonial society would evolve into. For all intense and purposes, blacks and whites co-existed and co-mingled on equal terms until the early 18th century when slavery was fully racialized. So it is not clear to me at all that whites in the early colonial era - at least around the Chesapeke region- were sold on a particular kind of political future and social relations much less conceive of 'America' as a white country. It's significant that this notion of a 'white' (as opposed to a christian) country emerged after slavery

Quoting Wonderment: it seems to me that you are overcomplicating the issue because you don't want to accept the implications of the simple solutions.

I may be overcomplicating the issue, but for me to be convinced of that I'd need to see a simpler way of treating the issues that does the job, and so far I haven't. But, based on some of what you say in your last post, I think we may be looking for different things. It seems that you'd be satisfied with any, as you put it, "success story based on compromise, a rejection of violence, a clear stake in a win-win outcome, mutual respect, etc., etc." I agree that that's what we need to work toward with existing conflicts: we need to use the tools we've got. But notice that compromise, e.g., involves finding some middle ground between positions, independently of what the positions are. In the Canada conflict, for example, ethnic nationalist considerations -- what you call a "failed ideology" -- are central, and are given great weight in cobbling the compromise. I agree that's the best we can do for now (and don't let me give the impression that I don't think it's an enormous achievement, and that we couldn't

(I think you might like Kymlicka, Wonderment.) From his page, I also got to three interesting, brief and accessible, interviews (around 15 minutes each) on the radio show "Philosophy Bites:
(1) Will Kymlicka on Minority Rights
(2) Anne Phillips on Multiculturalism
(3) Kwame Anthony Appiah on Cosmopolitanism

Sounds interesting. I will definitely check them out. Hasta la vista, מותק.