So seems to be a classic hot-button issue that people get so worked up about that they feel the need to draw lines in the sand separating the true believers from the idiots. No other way to explain the reaction to your clever, inoffensive songs. You can argue eloquently at length, as you have, how any reasonable minded person would have trouble finding anything controversial, let alone offensive, about your song lyrics. But it won’t matter. You have given enough information to assign you to the idiot category (or true believer, as the case may be). Unfortunately, this seems to mean that anyone who decides their views differ substantially from yours doesn’t think there is any point trying to discuss them. This kind of reaction is pervasive and is heart breaking, to me. I keep checking the board to see if something else comes up, but so far zip.
So I’ll say a few things intended to be rational discussion, mainly as a response to your extensive comments to Stan, even though I feel pretty uninformed about immigation issues and have basically zero personal experience. Doubtless, my comments will “label” me, but I’m confident that you will not. On the issue of immigration, I agree with what you’ve said and sung, in fact I find it hard to imagine anyone seriously questioning not only the legality, but the importance of regulating immigration, nor have I heard of any intrinsically oppressive aspects of immigration law. The issue of racism goes well beyond immigration. Racism is pervasive in human societies, and we all absorb those views. Although I wish it were otherwise, I am no exception and am acutely aware of my own built-in racist responses to the world around me. It is a deep-seated cultural-historical phenomenon and hopefully all people of good will are doing what they can to reach a higher path. Is concern about Latino immigration racist? Agreeing that it is important to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, my feeling is there are two minority groups in the US that qualify for affirmative action; Native Americans and African Americans. All other groups, forget it, they’re literally dying to get in. Lumping various “minority” groups into rainbow coalitions because they are all victims of “racism” insults the victims of the wrenchingly immoral personal and cultural destruction visited by Europeans on Africans and Indians. There is simply no comparison, not even close. And in neither case was “immigration” by these groups an issue. This is the history we live with and are obligated to rise above, somehow, someway, someday. No well meaning humane sympathy or concern for, solidarity with, or songs about “migrant workers” or “deportees” etc. can reasonably claim to put those issues in the same basket. I also agree with your implication that it is self serving to do otherwise. Indeed, from what I know about many Latin American societies, the current immigrants are likely to be as racist as us.
But given that the past can’t be changed (and I wouldn’t dare to if I could), what about the future? I thought your emphasis on sovereignty was interesting. Avoid political alliances? That sounds like a very idealist position. Since our history involves a web of alliances, I find it hard to imagine it. So when I think of the future, I think of increasingly organized alliances that have the potential to eliminate wars between countries. It seems with the collapse of Soviet communism we are practically at that stage, if we could muster the international will to assert it. And given that level of organization, work could be done to increase living standards in all nations, possibly reduce wealth inequalities, and ultimately lead to a world without significant border problems. I think of the European Union as a role model for this process, similarly the history of the relation between the states of the US. And why shouldn’t other countries become states of the US at some point? That seems completely “American” to me. Isn’t the key thing to retain the democratic foundations of the society? Can’t that be done in a larger context of political alliances that promote those values? You are concerned about global corporations, but if you only allow international commerce and not international alliances, doesn’t that result in just what you would like to avoid? I would think the fact of global corporations would be one strong argument for the need for political alliances. So I guess I’m surprised when your line of reasoning leads to exasperation over “the proposed North American Alliance, the so-called New World Order and the already enacted NAFTA agreement”. It seems to me that the goal should be how to build an international political organization that doesn’t compromise our principles.
Responses