Are people not responsible for their own actions anymore?

Please tell that to Irish and Italian diaspora please, i'm sure they'd be really happy for being the cause of collapse in the US back in the late 19th century. Oh wait, the US became a superpower instead? OOPS.
The Irish and Italians are high-functioning peoples, capable of hard work and high morals. They have proven themselves and forced the world to respect them.
They sound like a good addition to a fledgling nation.
 
Libertarianism FTW. \o/
LOLbertarianism?

Libertarianism has its virtues, but it would rely upon people who were of unrealistically high quality to work.
Or maybe I am confusing it with anarcho-cappitalism.
Friedman made some good arguments (as well as being highly entertaining to watch), but I don't think that his ideas are workable. Some say he was libertarian; others ancap.

Libertarianism could not work in our society. It would need something approaching a high-functioning ethnostate.
 
Please tell that to Irish and Italian diaspora please, i'm sure they'd be really happy for being the cause of collapse in the US back in the late 19th century. Oh wait, the US became a superpower instead? OOPS.

That's got to be the single most, crappiest, attempt at justification ever. 1/10 for effort.
 
The Irish and Italians are high-functioning peoples, capable of hard work and high morals. They have proven themselves and forced the world to respect them.
They sound like a good addition to a fledgling nation.

That's not racist or massively stereotypical at all./s

Forgot that these forums were full of white supremacists. Reflects really well on Overclockers.
 
The Irish and Italians are high-functioning peoples, capable of hard work and high morals. They have proven themselves and forced the world to respect them.
They sound like a good addition to a fledgling nation.

Really now...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment

Irish racism in Victorian Britain and 19th century United States included the stereotyping of the Irish as violent and alcoholic.[17] Some English illustrators depicted a prehistoric "ape-like image" of Irish faces to bolster evolutionary racist claims that the Irish people were an "inferior race" as compared to Anglo-Saxons.[18][19]

Similar to other immigrant populations, they were sometimes accused of cronyism and subjected to misrepresentations of their religious and cultural beliefs. Irish Catholics were particularly singled out for attack by Protestants.[18][not in citation given]

In Liverpool, England, where many Irish immigrants settled following the Great Famine, anti-Irish prejudice was widespread. The sheer numbers of people coming across the Irish sea and settling in the poorer districts of the city led to physical attacks and it became common practice for those with Irish accents or even Irish names to be barred from jobs, public houses and employment opportunities.

In 1836, young Benjamin Disraeli wrote:

[The Irish] hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.[20]

Nineteenth-century Protestant American "Nativist" discrimination against Irish Catholics reached a peak in the mid-1850s when the Know-Nothing Movement tried to oust Catholics from public office. Much of the opposition came from Irish Protestants, as in the 1831 riots in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[21]

During the 1830s in the U.S., riots for control of job sites broke out in rural areas among rival labour teams from different parts of Ireland, and between Irish and local American work teams competing for construction jobs.[22]

Irish Catholics were isolated and marginalized by Protestant society, but the Irish gained control of the Catholic Church from English, French and Germans. Intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants was strongly discouraged by both Protestant ministers and Catholic priests. Catholics, led by the Irish, built a network of parochial schools and colleges, as well as orphanages and hospitals, typically using nuns as an inexpensive work force. They thereby avoided public institutions mostly controlled by Protestants.[23]

"No Irish need apply"

After 1860, many Irish sang songs about "NINA signs" reading Help wanted – no Irish need apply. (A variation was Irish need not apply, or "INNA").[11] The 1862 song "No Irish Need Apply" was inspired by NINA signs in London. Later Irish Americans adapted the lyrics and the songs to reflect the discrimination they felt in America.[11]

Historians have debated the issue of anti-Irish job discrimination in the United States. Some insist that the "No Irish need apply" signs were common, but others, such as Richard J. Jensen, argue that anti-Irish job discrimination was not a significant factor in the United States, and these signs and print advertisements were posted by the limited number of early 19th-century English immigrants to the United States who shared the prejudices of their homeland.[11] In July 2015 the same journal that published Jensen's 2002 paper published a rebuttal by Rebecca A. Fried, an 8th-grade student at Sidwell Friends School.[24][25][26] She listed multiple instances of the restriction used in advertisements for many different types of positions, including "clerks at stores and hotels, bartenders, farm workers, house painters, hog butchers, coachmen, bookkeepers, blackers, workers at lumber yards, upholsterers, bakers, gilders, tailors, and papier mache workers, among others." While the greatest number of NINA instances occurred in the 1840s, Fried found instances for its continued use throughout the subsequent century, with the most recent dating to 1909 in Butte, Montana.[27]

Alongside "No Irish Need Apply" signs, in the post-World War II years, signs saying "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" or similar anti-Irish sentiment began to appear in the United Kingdom, as documented by the Irish Studies Centre at London Metropolitan University.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism

Anti-Italianism in the United States resulted among some Americans in reaction to the period in the late nineteenth century and twentieth century of large-scale immigration of Italians, mostly from southern Italy and Sicily.

The majority of Italian immigrants arrived in waves in the early 20th century, many from agrarian backgrounds, and with religions different than the Protestant majority. In United States, and other English-speaking countries to which they immigrated, such as Canada and Australia, Italian immigrants were often viewed as perpetual foreigners, restricted to manual labor. As they often lacked formal education, and competed with earlier immigrants for lower-paying jobs and housing, there was inter-ethnic hostility.[1] Ethnocentric chauvinism exhibited by early northern European settlers towards Italian immigrants was also an important factor, especially in the American South, which was overwhelmingly Protestant.

Much of the anti-Italian hostility in the United States was directed at Southern Italians and Sicilians, who began immigrating to the United States in large numbers after 1880. Before that, there were relatively few Italians in North America. In reaction to the large-scale immigration from southern and eastern Europe, Congress passed legislation (Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924) restricting immigration from those regions, but not from Northern European countries.

Anti-Italian prejudice was sometimes associated with the anti-Catholic tradition that existed in the United States, inherited from Protestant/Catholic European competition and wars over centuries. When the United States was founded, it inherited the anti-Catholic, anti-papal animosity of its original Protestant settlers. Anti-Catholic sentiments in the U.S. reached a peak in the 19th century when the Protestant population became alarmed by the number of Catholics immigrating to the United States. This was due in part to the standard tensions that arise between native-born citizens and immigrants. The resulting anti-Catholic nativist movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, led to hostility that resulted in mob violence, including the burning of Catholic property.[2] The Italian immigrants inherited this anti-Catholic hostility upon arrival; however, unlike some of the other Catholic immigrant groups, they generally did not bring with them priests and other religious who could help ease their transition into American life. To remedy this situation, Pope Leo XIII dispatched a contingent of priests, nuns and brothers of the Missionaries of St. Charles Borromeo to the U.S. (among which was Sister Francesca Cabrini), who helped establish hundreds of parishes to serve the needs of the Italian communities, such as Our Lady of Pompeii in New York City.[3]

Some of the early 20th-century immigrants from Italy brought with them a political disposition toward socialism and anarchism. This was a reaction to the economic and political conditions they had dealt with in Italy. Such men as Arturo Giovannitti, Carlo Tresca, and Joe Ettor were in the forefront of organizing Italian and other immigrant laborers in demanding better working conditions and shorter working hours in the mining, textile, garment, construction and other industries. These efforts often resulted in strikes, which sometimes erupted into violence between the strikers and strike-breakers. The anarchy movement in the United States at that time was responsible for bombings in major cities, and attacks on officials and law enforcement.[4] As a result of the association of some with the labor and anarchy movements, Italian Americans were branded as labor agitators and radicals by many of the business owners and the wealthier class of the time, which resulted in anti-Italian sentiments.

The vast majority of Italian immigrants worked hard and lived honest lives, as documented by police statistics of the early 20th century in Boston and New York City. Italian immigrants had an arrest rate no greater than that of other major immigrant groups.[5] As late as 1963, James W. Vander Zander noted that the rate of criminal convictions among Italian immigrants was less than that among American-born whites.[6] A criminal element active in some of the Italian immigrant communities of the large eastern cities used extortion, intimidation and threats to extract protection money from the wealthier immigrants and shop owners (known as the Black Handracket), and was involved in other illegal activities as well. When the Fascists came to power in Italy, they made the destruction of the Mafia in Sicily a high priority (Sicilian Mafia during the Mussolini regime). Hundreds fled to the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s to avoid prosecution.

When the United States enacted Prohibition in 1920, the restrictions proved to be an economic windfall for those in the Italian-American community already involved in illegal activities, and those who had fled from Sicily. They smuggled liquor into the country, wholesaled and sold it through a network of outlets and speakeasies. While other ethnic groups were also deeply involved in these illegal bootlegging activities, and the associated violence between groups, Italian Americans were among the most notorious.[7] Because of this, Italians became associated with the prototypical gangster in the minds of many, which had a long-lasting effect on the Italian-American image.

The experiences of Italian immigrants in North American countries were notably different from that in the South American countries to which they also immigrated in large numbers. Italians were key to developing countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. They quickly rose into the middle and upper classes there.[8] In the U.S., Italian Americans initially encountered an established Protestant-majority Northern European culture. For a time, they were viewed mainly as construction and industrial workers, chefs, plumbers, or other blue collar workers. Like the Irish before them, many entered police and fire departments of major cities.[9] Increasingly, their children went to college and, by 1990, more than 65% of Italian Americans were managerial, professional, or white collar workers.[10]

Violence against Italians

Rioters breaking into Parish Prison. Anti-Italian lynching in New Orleans, 1891
After the American Civil War, during the labor shortage as the South converted to free labor, planters in southern states recruited Italians to come to the United States to work mainly in agriculture and as laborers. Many soon found themselves the victims of prejudice, economic exploitation, and sometimes violence. Italian stereotypes abounded during this period as a means of justifying this maltreatment of the immigrants. The plight of the Italian immigrant agricultural workers in Mississippi was so serious that the Italian embassy became involved in investigating their mistreatment in cases studied for peonage. Later waves of Italian immigrants inherited these same virulent forms of discrimination and stereotyping which, by then, had become ingrained in the American consciousness.[11]

One of the largest mass lynchings in American history was of eleven Italians in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1891. The city had been the destination for numerous Italian immigrants.[12] Nineteen Italians who were thought to have assassinated police chief David Hennessy were arrested and held in the Parish Prison. Nine were tried, resulting in six acquittals and three mistrials. The next day, a mob stormed the prison and killed eleven men, none of whom had been convicted, and some of whom had not been tried.[13] Afterward, the police arrested hundreds of Italian immigrants, on the false pretext that they were all criminals.[14][15] Teddy Roosevelt, not yet president, famously said the lynching was indeed "a rather good thing". John M. Parker helped organize the lynch mob, and in 1911 was elected as governor of Louisiana. He described Italians as "just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in their habits, lawless, and treacherous".[16]

In 1899, in Tallulah, Louisiana, three Italian-American shopkeepers were lynched because they had treated blacks in their shops the same as whites. A vigilante mob hanged five Italian Americans: the three shopkeepers and two bystanders.[17]

In 1920 two Italian immigrants, Sacco and Vanzetti, were tried for robbery and murder in Boston, Massachusetts. Many historians agree that Sacco and Vanzetti were subjected to a mishandled trial, and the judge, jury, and prosecution were biased against them because of their anarchist political views and Italian immigrant status. Despite worldwide protests, Sacco and Vanzetti were eventually executed.[18] Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis declared August 23, 1977, the 50th anniversary of their execution, as Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti Memorial Day. His proclamation, issued in English and Italian, stated that Sacco and Vanzetti had been unfairly tried and convicted and that "any disgrace should be forever removed from their names." He did not pardon them, because that would imply they were guilty.[19]

Anti-Italianism was part of the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic ideology of the revived Ku Klux Klan (KKK) after 1915; the white supremacist and nativist group targeted Italians and other foreign Roman Catholics, seeking to preserve the supposed dominance of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. During the early 20th century, the KKK became active in northern and midwestern cities, where social change had been rapid due to immigration and industrialization. It was not limited to the South. It reached a peak of membership and influence in 1925. A hotbed of anti-Italian KKK activity developed in Southern New Jersey in the mid-1920s. In 1933, there was a mass protest against Italian immigrants in Vineland, New Jersey, where Italians made up 20% of the city population. The KKK eventually lost all of its power in Vineland, and left the city.

Same old ******* arguments, different era, different minority to oppress, same ******* conclusion.

How is it any different now? I'd love to hear what the TANGIBLE difference is between a Southern American and a Northern American is.
 
Last edited:
So what's the story with the dude, a long-time lurker with a username referencing his skin colour, suddenly becoming active to spray white-supremacist nonsense all over this thread?!

Kind of disturbing how attractive his views are to some of our regulars.
 
This whole situation is tragic of course but I don't understand why the debate is always centered around immediacy as if this photo and one event should change the whole policy. The people decrying Trump never explain what they actually want, the numbers they want to let in, how jobs will be found, where they will live, if they can afford health insurance, if there are school places etc. Present your plan and Trump might listen.

The people who go further and advocate for an open boarder seem extremely short sighted in my experience. Many of them have their heart in the right place but they seem infantile in their understanding of the way society operates. Then on the flip side I honestly think there are some people who secretly want open boarders for the chaos it would cause in a drive to "smash the system".

This is going to be an increasing problem with rampant globalisation. People will simply want to be nomadic and move to where the best way of life already exists, rather than the past where the people with money and skills tried to make their own towns and cities a better place to live. In the long run open boarders just means a snowball of decline in places people can turn their back on and just run away from.

This is all easy to say living in a safe western country and I count my blessings every day I live in such a great country. But I want to see other countries thrive and build their own boat rather than just using the West as a life raft. How this is achieved is vastly complex and reducing the argument to an impulsive reaction of "Trump let them in!" is not really helpful.
 
So what's the story with the dude, a long-time lurker with a username referencing his skin colour, suddenly becoming active to spray white-supremacist nonsense all over this thread?!

Kind of disturbing how attractive his views are to some of our regulars.
Given the history of this forum and it's age demographic in not surprised the older members have conflicting views to the current norm of perceived, everything is equality, types.
 
Trump should just offer to bring Mexico within the borders of the united states and take leadership over it.

He'll stop immigration from Mexico and save a fortune on the wall as he can still build it but the size of the wall needed between Mexico and Guatemala/Belize is smaller than the Mexico/US border. You'll have all those Mexican's to guard it as well and a lot have weapons already.


In all seriousness, seeing a child die is a tragedy and seems to be a point many are missing on their crusade to have their opinion be crowned king.
 
This whole situation is tragic of course but I don't understand why the debate is always centered around immediacy as if this photo and one event should change the whole policy. The people decrying Trump never explain what they actually want, the numbers they want to let in, how jobs will be found, where they will live, if they can afford health insurance, if there are school places etc. Present your plan and Trump might listen.

The people who go further and advocate for an open boarder seem extremely short sighted in my experience. Many of them have their heart in the right place but they seem infantile in their understanding of the way society operates. Then on the flip side I honestly think there are some people who secretly want open boarders for the chaos it would cause in a drive to "smash the system".

This is going to be an increasing problem with rampant globalisation. People will simply want to be nomadic and move to where the best way of life already exists, rather than the past where the people with money and skills tried to make their own towns and cities a better place to live. In the long run open boarders just means a snowball of decline in places people can turn their back on and just run away from.

This is all easy to say living in a safe western country and I count my blessings every day I live in such a great country. But I want to see other countries thrive and build their own boat rather than just using the West as a life raft. How this is achieved is vastly complex and reducing the argument to an impulsive reaction of "Trump let them in!" is not really helpful.

100% yes

But no one really cares. It's all about now. No one plans more than 1 election cycle. All sides are abhorrent in their own way.
 
Not sure annexing 130 million people into the USA is really the way anyone in the USA would want it, maybe 130 million Mexicans would approve..
 
100% yes

But no one really cares. It's all about now. No one plans more than 1 election cycle. All sides are abhorrent in their own way.

The Western media and increasing connectivity due to the internet has turned many of us hysterical. I mean in reality I should have no idea about this man and his child, instead it was presented to me at the front of the supermarket when I popped in to pickup a sandwich this morning. We are asked to take sides at every turn on issues that previous generations would have no knowledge of. If everyone in the world concentrated on their immediate surroundings and put their mental energy into their own family and town the world would be a much better place. But pushing globalisation is what those at the top want us focused on, so that isn't going to happen.

A traditional quiet life is a difficult thing to pursue in this day and age. We get our kids involved in these issues at primary school age ensuring they are all "globally aware" ready to compete in the "global market" etc. But what is it all for and where does it end?
 
Last edited:
What a ******* moron, attempting to swim across the Rio Grande with a small child. His child is dead because of his idiocy, words fail.
 
The Western media and increasing connectivity due to the internet has turned many of us hysterical. I mean in reality I should have no idea about this man and his child, instead it was presented to me at the front of the supermarket when I popped in to pickup a sandwich this morning. We are asked to take sides at every turn on issues that previous generations would have no knowledge of.
Yep pretty much everything is a polarising issue these days and it can't be good for mental health. I don't do social media and I don't watch TV but I still manage to see enough and let things wind me up way more than they should.

Occasionally I'll bite when I really should just walk away and do something productive instead. :D

I really need to hurry up and get my plans sorted to move somewhere rural and forget all the constant bickering. :)
 
I must admit not to know too much about that period, but I wonder what the lingering/ongoing effects of the US 1980's involvement in Central America are?

It seems as if years of the US installing puppet governments in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc. may have a role to play in the current mess in Central America. Those governments completely ignored the middle and lower classes, and now there are levels of crime and death that are simply unbelievable in those countries.

I'm certainly not saying the US should open their borders or anything like that at all, but perhaps they should take into consideration that they've played a major role in the current mess in Central America. It smacks as arrogance for the US to brazenly force themselves upon the politics, economics and societies within Central America only to slam the door behind them when they scamper back to home soil.
 
Back
Top Bottom