PDA

View Full Version : Inspired by "The most dangerous word in the world"




Eleventh Star
07-27-2011, 09:32 AM
This morning as I was browsing I found a thread referencing a lewrockwell.com article "The Most Dangerous Word in the World." It's "we", with the author pointing out how "we" is used to coerce people and justify the worst excesses of collectivism. It struck me how often I'd heard "we" or "Americans" in the speeches of Bush and Obama in the past decade and how uneasy it made me. Together with the folksiness and synthetic familiarity that a president seems required to use, it felt like being stuffed into a Norman Rockwell painting against my will. Because by God, "we" are all patriotic Americans and "we" will get behind whatever great endeavor President _____ wanted "us" to undertake.

My family moved to the United States from the Philippines in 1999, when I was still a child. My mother instilled in me a deep and abiding love for the culture and language of my birthplace. I still call myself a Filipino and I'll be one for the rest of my life. As such, I wasn't very moved by Presidential rhetoric about community and what "we" would do and what "our" future was. If anything, the barrage of faux sentimentality turned me off to identifying as an American.

Growing up here gave me more reasons to maintain that attitude. It was always a little entertaining checking the box for race on surveys or applications. Geographically, the Philippines is in Asia but has a strong Hispanic element in its culture. The vast majority of Filipinos are Catholic and many have Spanish surnames. That makes us not entirely Asian yet not entirely Hispanic either. But according to Uncle Sam, you're White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian. That was the first and most benign example I noticed of a government that categorized and de-personalized its people while lecturing them about how they were all part of a big, happy family. If you had any defining qualities, it wasn't for where you were from, what you believed, or what you did. It was if you were part of some interest group, like the middle class, working families, single mothers, and any kind of group that defined itself by relation to government support or privilege.

That was before Ron Paul. The good doctor removed the veil of doublespeak that hid the real America from me. And his supporters were real people with human faces, people who defined themselves by support for him and his principles and not by their membership in some government defined group. People who had interesting pasts and ideas, who were independent, and wanted to stay that way. People who were proud of where they came from in Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Utah, or wherever, and didn't want to run-off to New York or California. For the record, I live in NY and appreciate it not because it has "the greatest city in the world" but because it's where I grew up and my new home.

That's why I'll be happy, proud even, to call myself an American in Ron Paul's America. I'd stand before the world as an individual, free to make my identity as I see fit. My humanity wouldn't be distilled into a number or box to check. It would be the America I envisioned before coming here, one where a person could go anywhere and do anything as long as it didn't hurt anyone else. There'd be room for me in such a place, room for me to be myself. And that's what America's really all about.

fisharmor
07-27-2011, 09:48 AM
My humanity wouldn't be distilled into a number or box to check. It would be the America I envisioned before coming here, one where a person could go anywhere and do anything as long as it didn't hurt anyone else. There'd be room for me in such a place, room for me to be myself. And that's what America's really all about.

There is literally nothing within the bounds of the constitution which the US government may do which would require them to know this.
Nothing.
Any discussion of racism in the US should, in my opinion, begin with the fact that the law of the land does not accommodate the Federal Govt keeping track of what race you are.
Given the number of employees, the budget, and the reach of the Federal Govt, it represents the largest application of racist thinking in the world.

Oh, and by the way, speaking of Hispanic heritage: remember that there are people on this forum whose pet issue they're willing to disregard the constitution on is keeping people of Hispanic heritage out of the country. Given that you're something like the 65th person not originally from America I've met who seems to understand this place better than its natives, I'm interested in knowing your position on that topic, too.

fisharmor
07-27-2011, 09:53 AM
I'd also like to add that I looked up and noticed the "black" guys on my team:
-One was born on Trinidad
-One was born in Sierra Leone
-One was born in Jamaica
-One was born in the US

Three of them are superb analysts... but other than that the only similarity is skin color.

Eleventh Star
07-27-2011, 10:12 AM
There is literally nothing within the bounds of the constitution which the US government may do which would require them to know this.
Nothing.
Any discussion of racism in the US should, in my opinion, begin with the fact that the law of the land does not accommodate the Federal Govt keeping track of what race you are.
Given the number of employees, the budget, and the reach of the Federal Govt, it represents the largest application of racist thinking in the world.

I didn't mean for race to be the take-away message but this is precisely what I meant. The Federal Gov't perpetuates racism by keeping track of race and making decisions based on it. I don't see where we disagree here.



Oh, and by the way, speaking of Hispanic heritage: remember that there are people on this forum whose pet issue they're willing to disregard the constitution on is keeping people of Hispanic heritage out of the country. Given that you're something like the 65th person not originally from America I've met who seems to understand this place better than its natives, I'm interested in knowing your position on that topic, too.

I haven't been around here that long but I've yet to read people advocating that. Can you elaborate on how they would disregard the Constitution to do that? I'm a permanent resident and managed to do that entirely through legal means. I'd also like to see where I professed to know better than Americans who were born and raised here.

fisharmor
07-27-2011, 10:22 AM
I think you're reading me as being antagonistic: I don't mean to sound that way at all.
I don't see the part of the constitution which gives the federal government the ability to define citizenship, prevent non-citizens from entering, treating citizens differently from non-citizens, and expelling non-citizens.
I do, however, note that part of the constitution states that unless specifically given these powers, the federal government does not have them.
When we discuss "legal means" we can therefore only be talking about state law.
The fact that the federal government attempts to keep people out in contradiction to the law makes these "legal means", in fact, illegal.

ETA:

I'd also like to see where I professed to know better than Americans who were born and raised here.
You did not, I am the one making the assertion.

mello
07-27-2011, 12:39 PM
I thought you were gonna say "Voldemort". :)

Eleventh Star
07-27-2011, 12:52 PM
I think you're reading me as being antagonistic: I don't mean to sound that way at all.
I don't see the part of the constitution which gives the federal government the ability to define citizenship, prevent non-citizens from entering, treating citizens differently from non-citizens, and expelling non-citizens.
I do, however, note that part of the constitution states that unless specifically given these powers, the federal government does not have them.
When we discuss "legal means" we can therefore only be talking about state law.
The fact that the federal government attempts to keep people out in contradiction to the law makes these "legal means", in fact, illegal.

A very fair point that I've never seen explored before. I'm guessing that federal definition of citizenship with its rights and obligations is a relatively modern (20th c. perhaps?) development that causes more trouble than it's worth.


I thought you were gonna say "Voldemort".

Don't you mean He-who-must-not-be-named? ;)