This is really unbelievable. In the course of interviewing John McCain about the pending immigration bill, O’Reilly uncorked this beauty:
Do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far left want? They want to break down the white Christian male power structure of which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say that you’ve gotta cap it with a number.
As a factual matter, of course, if he’s talking about immigrants from Mexico, most of them are Christian, and plenty of them are male. It’s the white thing that O’Reilly is really worried about.
Give O’Reilly credit for this: at least he’s not hiding it any more. No more blather about national security, or taking jobs from “real” Americans, or any other excuse. He’s worried about white people losing their control over the power structure in this country. And so, he says, the white people who at present control the legislature need to do whatever it takes to be sure that control doesn’t leave white hands.
If that’s not a racist point of view, I really don’t know what is.
joets says
Is it or is it not true that you want to break down the white Christian male power structure?
david says
Do you agree with O’Reilly that white people should take steps to ensure that power remains controlled by white people?
joets says
But I think if that you suddenly legalized millions of citizens all at once in states like Arizona and New Mexico, the system will get shaken up. A lot.
<
p>
It’s easy to sit back in our Massachusetts chairs and call people in Arizona big racists and whatnot, but come on David, they have it a lot tougher and more serious than we do. What would be a moderately noticeable change in Mass would be a total shift in society down there. Now that shift will happen, but it might be better to make it gradual instead of tossing the lobster in a boiling pot.
mcrd says
He laid down on this issue quite some time ago.
<
p>
What you quoted was taken out of context or he was baiting McCain. McCain and O’reilly are in the same bed re this isue, ergo I do not watch O’Reilly any longer—well just once in a while. The fact that he is a pompous, self-righteous, overbearing ass has something to do with it as well.
<
p>
I will give O’Reilly one thing: he calls them like he sees them, unlike the remainder of the MSM hacks. I do believe the spin does stop with O’Reilly, but he dicided to throw his lot in with Bush and Mccain re this issue.
<
p>
You will note that most unions and “working class” people are vehemently opposed, for obvious reasons.
david says
Nope. Have you watched the video? It is anything but out of context — O’Reilly is stating his views forcefully and forthrightly. As I said in the post, good on him for putting his cards on the table. As for baiting McCain, I don’t think that’s right either. He certainly wants McCain to agree with him, because McCain’s in the Senate and he isn’t, but he’s just saying what he thinks.
<
p>
You’re right, though, that I don’t watch O’Reilly. But I wasn’t aware of his stating his position in quite such stark racial terms before.
ryepower12 says
It shouldn’t be something anyone really thinks about. I mean, really, who cares? Is Bill Richardson, for example, all that different from any of the non-latino candidates running for the Democratic nomination? It wouldn’t change very much, except for the fact that America would become a much more tolerant, better place if people weren’t so worried about ethnicity. We all want the same, basic things: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn’t change if you’re white, black, hispanic, purple or martian-american.
alexwill says
I don’t think that’s the controversy: it’s that O’Reilly implies that whites, Christians, and men should actively fight for unfair privileges.
mcrd says
Gee, how about throwing a little affirmative action in the direction of my kids.
<
p>
I also want the same deal as the illegal aliens, I don’t want to be responsible for paying my federal income taxes for the last five years.
<
p>
Unfair privilege indeed!
anthony says
…a stupid, straw man argument. While it is true that some undocumented immigrants work under the table and therefore avoid paying taxes the same is true for some citizens as well. Many undocumented immigrants are paid on the books and have their taxes withheld. Some of them never file income tax returns and receive refunds they are do, so in fact a number of undocumented immigrants paid more tax than they owe.
raj says
Many undocumented immigrants are paid on the books and have their taxes withheld.
<
p>
How can they be paid “on the books” without, presumably, having social security numbers.
<
p>
Quite frankly, I believe that the “they don’t pay taxes” is something of a red herring. Of course they pay taxes, if only indirectly. They pay property taxes via the housing that they rent. The obviously pay sales taxes when they buy good. The same with excise taxes.
sco says
david says
2005 NY Times report (firewalled, sorry):
<
p>
raj says
…unless the IRS does not cross-check the W-4s filled out by new employees, against the Social Security Administration’s records. A new employee fills out a W-4 when starting employment, and (if memory serves) requires the new employee to provide his/her SS number, name and address. The address is irrelevant (the prospective employee may have moved), but the name and SS number should match to large extent. If the SS Administration doesn’t have a number corresponding to that on the W-4, that should be one flag that there is a problem. If the SSA does have a number corresponding to that on the W-4, that should be another flag. And, if both the number and name correspond to that on another account, that suggests that there should be a little investigation.
anthony says
….break down the white Christian male power structure even mean? That is such a loaded question meant to put those who would answer it on the defensive. White Cristian men are NOT the majority of Americans so why should they be the ones with all the power? I don’t want to break anything down, but I do want all Americans, women and people of color included in the power structure. Let me just pose this question: What frightens you about a power structure that is representative of the actual population of these United States?
joets says
and walked up to me and said “Trabajo” over and over again. Now, I know that means “to work” but the insolence of this individual caused me to say a word over and over again. “Ausgang”. She didn’t understand me. Imagine that. She didn’t understand a word because it wasn’t her native language.
<
p>
Here’s my gripe: I work in a place where there’s tonnns of immigrants: the New Bedford area. Whenever I deal with Portuguese people, they’re friendly, and try really hard to use what English they know to communicate their needs to me, I have never once had a Portuguese person approach me and continue to speak their language to me after realizing I don’t understand them. They either use what little English they know, which is usually enough, or they politely smile and go looking for someone who they can speak to.
<
p>
This Mexican woman stood in front of me and said “trabajo” over and over again, even after I said “no comprende” expecting that somehow I was going to pull out my Rosetta stone and get what she was saying “to work” in reference to.
<
p>
So you seriously expect me to sit back and gleefully accept that this woman should just get her citizenship like that? My great-grandparents (and one of my grandmothers) learned English. The mafias and the white gangs are for all intents and purposes benign, but now we have Mara Salvatruchas, which makes the Winter Hill Gang look like Peace Corps.
<
p>
I’m not worried about my white male power structure breaking down, I’m worried about structure in general.
<
p>
I’m sorry if that sounds racist to all you folks, but I’m basing my opinion on my experience, not ideals. Ideally this would be a joyous event, but in my microcosm of a world, I haven’t seen all that much good coming. I hope I’m wrong.
laurel says
and didn’t bother to learn to speak english until eons after arriving here (great grandpa “immigrated” by going awol when his navy ship hit nyc). what made them finally buckle down and learn their adopted country’s language was one of their daughters, my great aunt, getting thrown out of school for lack of english. why had they never bothered before? probably because they were so f-in busy doing arbeit. so you see, it’s not just these mexicans (and how did you know she was actually mexican, btw?) who are not tip top in their english skills. it is bad form, i agree, and some people probably are lazy in learning the new language. but many immigrants don’t have the time to knuckle down to learn on a more decorous timescale.
<
p>
p.s. maybe if you want a spanish speaker to believe you when you lie that you don’t understand what she is saying, don’t answer in their own language. ya think?
<
p>
p.p.s one more anecdote – the father of a friend came to visit her in CT. they are both polish in origin, although she is now a citizen. he is not. he arrived on a visitors visa and never left. he is white. he is an illegal alien from europe. he still speaks little english. that was, oh 10 years ago. people from everywhere break the law. you just see more brown people doing it because more of them have an economic imperative to do so.
raj says
…my ancestors, my great-grands, were german and didn’t bother to learn to speak english until eons after arriving here (great grandpa “immigrated” by going awol when his navy ship hit nyc)…
<
p>
Ja, und? Viele koennen entdecken Gesellschaften, in den sie auftauchen koennen. Hier in der Nord End der Boston gab es viele leute die nur Italienisch gesprochen war. Aber, ist es gut fuer die grossere Gesellschaft–die Stadt, die doerfer, der Staat, oder das Bund, dass sie sich so teilen?
<
p>
BTW, it’s “Arbeit,” not “arbeit.” In German, the first letters of all nouns are capitalized.
laurel says
so please excuse my inability to respond to your missive. funny though that you opine some sort of discrimination against monolinguists, then launch off into another language. help! raj is discriminating against me! someone, please report him to himself! 😀
joets says
You know Arbeit has something to do with work, but if I just walk up to you saying “Arbeit! Arbeit!” despite knowing what the word means, do you understand what I’m saying? No, I would have to saying something like “Will ich hier arbeiten.” or “Mein Hammer arbeitet nicht” even though “Mein Hammer ist kaput” is better. Despite knowing “trabajo” kinda, I would not have been able to comprehend any follow up to her yammering. Thus, “no comprende.”
<
p>
<
p>
I was in Germany for just a month, and I would have had to go out of my way to not have picked a lot up from just being there. We’re building a self-propagating society where there’s going to be a perpetual language barrier (which will turn into a caste system) by not forcing immersion.
<
p>
Drop the ‘tude, too.
laurel says
in a liar sort of behavior.
<
p>
i agree that it’s hard not to pick up a bit of the language wherever you are. but how do you know that woman had been here for more than 10 minutes? you judged an entire national issue based on, what, a 1 minute encounter? also, when you were in germany for a month, were you working 12-14 hrs per day? or were you there to vacation or study? ther difference is significant. if you were set to clean toilet 14 hrs a day with little contact outside of others of your native language, you wouldn’t learn much beyond what was printed on the porcelain.
raj says
One, Will ich hier arbeiten should be “Ich will hier arbeiten. (I want to work here.) German grammar generally puts the subject first in a simple declarative sentence, then the verb, except when the sentence begins with, for example a date or a time, then the position of the subject and verb is reversed. It’s different in a subjunctive clause–then the verb is placed at the end of the clause.
<
p>
Two, no German would say Mein Hammer arbeitet nicht. “Arbeiten” refers to a person working. Depending on what you want to say Mein Hammer ist kaput might work, and Mein Hammer funktioniert nicht or Mein Hammer geht nicht also would work. The latter would be considered Umgangsprache.
raj says
First, the minor ones.
<
p>
“Trabajo” is the first person singular of the Spanish verb “trabajar,” and the latter is the infinitive meaning “to work.” “Trabajo,” used with “yo” means “I work”.
<
p>
“Ausgang” is the German noun for “exit”–as in exit by foot. Exit by motorcar from a roadway is Ausfahrt. In German, if you want to order someone to leave, you would say “geh aus” (familiar) or “gehen Sie aus” (formal), or, if you want to get rid of someone, just say “geh weg” (go away).
<
p>
On your more general theme, and this gets to the major nit, apparently many people do not understand the primary purpose of this bilingualism. It is to discriminate against people who are not bilingual–in the Andalucian/Mexican, Central American and South american sense, and that means people who do not reasonably fluent in the Andalucian dialect originating from southern Spain. A few years ago, I observed the manager of the BSC gym that I go to near Babson asking one of the workers whether he was more comfortable speaking English or Spanish. The response was obvious. I will let you know that my spouse’s parents, immigrants from Germany in 1957 and largely non-English speakers, would never have been accorded that luxury of choice. My spouse, who they dragged here with them at 6 years of age, learned English quite rapidly–he says from comic books.
<
p>
I will also let you know that requiring a company requiring a manager of a vacility to give into the whims of an employee in regards language to be used at the workplace essentially discriminates against non-spanish speaking native Americans. We see it in bilingual education–if a teacher can’t speak spanish, how is he or she supposed to provide bilingual education?
<
p>
BTW, I don’t particularly care whether it’s racist. The fact is that it such policies are discriminatory against non-spanish speaker. Ironically, it may be a violation against the 1964 anti-discrimination act outlawing discrimination based on national origin–the national origin being the US.
joets says
She was standing next to the door, I was saying she should take advantage of it. However, in Hessen, I saw exits off the Autobahn as Ausgang. Regional thing? Good call on Trabajo though, its been a few since I took spanish.
<
p>
<
p>
Could you please expand on this more? I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean.
raj says
However, in Hessen, I saw exits off the Autobahn as Ausgang.
<
p>
…It has been a while since we’ve driven in Bayern–for the last few years, we have usually stayed in our Dorf and uses the S-Bahn to get around. But Ausgang has usually been used for foot traffic and Ausfahrt for vehicular traffic, for obvious reasons.
<
p>
As to the discrimination against those who are not bilingual, it should be obvious. If a prospective manager or teacher is not bilingual, he or she will be unable to communicate with those the underlings (in the case of a manager) or students (in the case of a teacher) are not fluent in English. Accordly, the prospective manager is less likely to be hired. A number of years ago, this discriminatory effect of the requirement of bilingualism was noted, particularly among public school teachers.
<
p>
Two points. One, my spouse’s family emigrated from Germany in 1957. They had to learn at least some English in order to survive. My spouse’s father was a largely uneducated “displaced person” during WWII from the Ukraine. But he could make do in five languages: Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, German, and, to a lesser extent, English.
<
p>
Two, we were on a Rhein cruise in 1989, and we were talking with the bartender. He was a Turk, so obviously he spoke Turkish. He could also speak German, French, Dutch and English. We asked him why he would take the effort to learn so many languages. His response: he had to in order to survive. As an aside, during the Rhein cruise, the boat stopped in Strassbourg (Elsass) and we went to a Charcouterie. The saleslady spoke to us in perfect unaccented German. After we finished, I listened to her speak to the next customer in perfect unaccented French.
<
p>
It isn’t that difficult to learn a new language when you have to. Accents aside. Bilingualism isn’t helping the immigrants any.
anthony says
…discriminatory with requiring people to have the skills necessary to do their job. Monolinguism is not an immutable characteristic. You would need to show and intent to discriminate based on national origin and that language was being deliberately used as a proxy to achieve that goal for it to be discriminatory. A perceived or even actual discriminatory effect is not sufficient.
anthony says
….and as I recall exits on the Autobahn were Ausfahrt and not Ausgang.
anthony says
…trabajo is also a noun.
<
p>
Y no estoy de acuerdo con tu propuesta que hablando español en un lugar de trabajo es racista o una violación de la ley contra discriminación. Lenguaje y nacionalidad no son sinónimos y si el uso de español en el lugar de trabajo sirve una causa legítima y no es una sustitución de animosidad no viola la ley.
anthony says
…since you had one experience that you felt was unpleasant we should hold on with white knuckles to a white Cristian power structure regardless of the racism that is required in doing so? Well, of course because we all know that all latin people only speak spanish. All those families that have been here for generations still haven’t mastered English. All those black people and women don’t speak english either – is that right? Interesting how you took a post about racism and sexism and turned it into more immigration panic. There are plenty of women, people of color and non-Christian Americans who are citizens of this country already to make statements like O’Reiley’s obsolete and racist. The fact that you have to change the subject to even make your point proves it.
maryg says
I heard O’Reilly make this very comment on the radio as I was driving cross-country on Tuesday. “Wow,” thought I, “there it is — I wonder if anyone is actually LISTENING to this?” He then proceeded to employ the strategy of placing his comments in the context of the following: “Anyone who opposes ‘our structure’ (which he had just defined as white (Christian) male dominated) hates America.” It was chilling. If we had any doubts that O’Reilly is a fascist, they dissolved for me at that instant. For a moment I thought that I had somehow time-travelled back to Germany in 1931. The next question for me is, “Why does he get a prominent platform on a major television network? Why are advertisers supporting THIS?” I changed radio stations because I didn’t want to hear anymore, but my mind kept skipping back to a crude, hand-painted sign I had seen earlier that morning in a front yard in Vandalia, IL: “Who will be there when they come for you?”
raj says
…illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, it would stop decimating the countries’ economies by stopping dumping of US government-subsidized agricultural produce there. Archer Daniels Midland doesn’t want to have the US gov’t stop subsidizing them and other agri-business, so it isn’t going to happen. So the USians should just shut up (a la O’Reilly, notice) and reap what they have sowed in the third world.
bob-neer says
His argument is completely ridiculous, at least an own goal of the most clumsy sort, because he himself, like all Irish-Americans is black — or at least was historically. Read all about it in How the Irish Became White.
gary says
I’m pretty sure that the power structure of the US is white, christian and male, no?
<
p>
And like it or not America wouldn’t exist, in its current form, if it hadn’t been founded by white Christian guys.
<
p>
Arguably, we wouldn’t be as hard working, as profitable, wouldn’t have the Puritan ethics if some other ethic group founded the country. Maybe the US would be better if white, Christian guys hadn’t founded it. Maybe it’d be worse.
<
p>
But, white Christian guys did it and gave us-and continue to give us from that seat of power–policies that we got.
<
p>
So, it seems everyone in this thread is into asking profound questions. Stack this one on: What will happen as we continue the Kumbayaization of America? Will be still be Christian and/or white?
<
p>
Somebody like O’Reilly and Pat Buchanan think it might get worse. Fair question. No? Doesn’t make ’em racist so don’t be “deeply disturbed” (christ, how dramatic).
<
p>
Maybe, just maybe, it’s because of the White Chistian Guy history–George Washington and Jefferson and the whole lot of racist pigs–that we got civil rights, universal sufferage. Maybe it’s because of those greedy bastards that robbed the whole country–Getty, Carnegie, Mellon–yet build the only industrial complex that could defeat Hitler’s Germany. Maybe the White Christians will the reason we’ll have gay marriage, stop global warming (Al Gore, White? Christian?).
<
p>
All O’Reilly and Buchanan are saying is that if the US comes to lack the identity that brought us to where we are, maybe the destination we head towards won’t be as bright. And to take that thought to the next step, if they believe it’s the White Christian Guys that took us to where we are, then what policies should you intitiate to keep us on the same path.
<
p>
Debate what he really said. Step away from the race card.
laurel says
who compelled the work of enslaved blacks and economically entrapped immigrants, creating a need for explicitly stated civil rights.
<
p>
well done, gary.
gary says
Sure, you could append my post with that very statement.
<
p>
The White Christian Guys brought us oppression of the Indians and the Blacks, and the Robber-Barrons of the Industrial Age, and the Plantations of the South, the Civil War, Segregation … everything good and bad that happened from 1600 to now, is primarily the result of actions, crimes, stupidity, greed, wisdom, inaction of White Christian Guys.
<
p>
So what your ‘well done’ mean? That I’ve stated history right, or wrong.
<
p>
Articulate carefully this: Is the America we have today primarily the result of power held by White Christian Guys?
<
p>
Then, if you answer affirmatively to that largely factual and historical question, how do you think by-and-large, this largely white, chrisitan run country is doing in this 2007?
syphax says
Articulate carefully this: Is the America we have today primarily the result of power held by White Christian Guys?
<
p>
The America we have today is primarily the result of a culture and political system that is generally true to the ideals of liberal democracy, the rule of law, and liberty, economic and otherwise. Yeah, it was primarily set up by white male Christians, but I fail to see how white-ness, male-ness, and Christianity are intrinsic to any of those values (with the possible exception of ‘the Christian tradition’), or how non-white female non-Christians can’t sustain the system. And it would seem silly to overlook the fact that democracy has its roots in Athens and other ancient city-states, which were decidedly not Christian (the Savior not having arrived yet, of course).
<
p>
Will the country fall apart if a black man or white woman is elected President? How about a Hispanic governor? I’ll let you answer that.
<
p>
Hey, the white mail Christian founder fathers did a great job. But to claim (as you seem to be inferring) that white male Christians are the only ones qualified to run a liberal democracy is, ipso facto, racist, sexist, et al. What would Margaret Thatcher say? Keith Ellison? Joe Lieberman? Are they enable to effectively contribute to the governance of a liberal democracy?
john-howard says
I mean, even those of us of English descent that go back to Jamestown aren’t very English. Right away English culture was profoundly influenced by the culture of the Powhatan Empire and then even more so as English moved westward by the nations of the Great Plains. Lila by Robert Pirsig originally was going to be a book about how much American culture is native to America (then it became a book about philosophy of morals in general, a great book). Most of the individualism and idea of equal rights was learned from the philosophy of Native Americans and made its way back across the ocean to Locke and Rousseau and obviously even better understood and articulated by Jefferson et al.
gary says
<
p>
No, and no. Easy answer.
<
p>
Unfortunately, simply by bringing up the discussion, Buchanan/O’Reilly are immmediatly accused of being racist. I think, and perhaps I haven’t articulated it well, that it cheapens the discussion to dismiss it with “oh, he’s a racist. How disturbing”.
<
p>
What they are saying–more loudly Buchanan than O’Reilly– is that the US has a cultural unity that was–for better or worse–brought to you through US history by Christian, male dominated culture of people descendant from Western European.
<
p>
It’s a successful story that the old, white, christian guys brought you. Why risk changing it with uncontrolled immigration that risks bringing to the US, the same squabbles over race, ethnicity, ancient feuds, morality, and religion that have broken up countries all over the world.
<
p>
No one is claiming (decide for yourself) that only white male Christians are qualified to run a liberal democracy.
centralmassdad says
The thing that has you agitated is multiculturalism or “celebrating our diversity” which, in my view, buries any American cultural unity that could unite us despite widely varying backgrounds in favor of focusing on the things that separate group A from group B.
<
p>
I have always found the notion to be a form of creeping balkanization, and therefore hold the PC movement and the “diversity” movement in rather low regard.
<
p>
I think you will grant, though, that IF this is what the distinguished TV talk show guy was attempting to describe, he did in what can most charitably be described as an inartful manner.
<
p>
Just because much of our civic institutions and civicvalues and culture came from old WASPy men doesn’t mean that these things are Christiam and white. Describing them in this manner simply falls into the same us-and-them trap that makes cultural cheerleading somewhat odious.
mr-lynne says
… with your last paragraph. I myself found the “all cultures are equally valuable and equally cannot be judged” idea within multiculturism to be flawed. Certainly diversity has its advantages in that it can be a positive factor in contributing to the marketplace of ideas, but to remove judgement of those ideas negates this very benefit. So while I don’t hold diversity in low regard at all, I do see how it can be twisted into a net negative.
<
p>
As to the inartful manner, I think it goes beyond that. The way he chose to express it is indicative of a mode of thinking. His ‘shoot-from-the-hip’ style of discourse often gets him in trouble in that it reveals his thought process when he speaks ‘off the top of his head’.
tim-little says
<
p>
I will preface by saying that there are many worse places to live than the United States, Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc. However our “succees” — by what measure? — has come at a cost to our planet, to our fellow human beings, and even to ourselves both collectively and individually. This begs the question of whether the legacy of these old, white, christian guys is a boon or a burden (or, more likely, some nondual blend of the two).
<
p>
What strikes me about this discussion is the underlying fear of change expressed by Buchanan, O’Reilly, and the like. The point is we are where we are regardless of how we got here; the “past” is a moot point and we are headed for towards a “future” that is largely unpredictable. The question is whether we can embrace the inevitable change and uncertainty that lies ahead or whether we’ll resist it.
<
p>
I plainly cast my lot with those who are willing to embrace change. If I end up needing to learn Spanish or German or Mandarin, is it really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things? It’s simply a matter of “going with the flow” and adapting to change.
<
p>
Finally, I think it’s self-evident that long-term social stability derives from an equitable distribution of power — in other words the power structure should appropriately reflect demographics of the community at large. As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, it’s in our collective interest not to marginalize newcomers to our community, or to try to cling to a past that no longer exists.
<
p>
centralmassdad says
And then undid them
mr-lynne says
“…Somebody like O’Reilly and Pat Buchanan think it might get worse. Fair question. No? Doesn’t make ’em racist…”
<
p>
To say that they suspect that movement from a white to a non-white power structure would necessarily be bad (or good) is racist by definition.
<
p>
The cognitive dissonance is deafening.
gary says
If I’d have made the statement several years ago with respect to S. Africa that “a movement from white to non-white power structure would be a good thing” it’d be racist by definition?
mr-lynne says
… the idea that non-white power is better by virtue of its non-whiteness alone is racist.
<
p>
There are other factors, but they are convoluted by race, not defined by it.
anthony says
….of ridiculous claptrap. Yes, saying that white Christians need to maintain a strong hold on the power structure in a country where white Chritian males are now a minority (and for the record they were in 1776, too) does make someone racist and sexist to boot.
sabrinaqedesha says
All O’Reilly and Buchanan are saying is that if the US comes to lack the identity that brought us to where we are, maybe the destination we head towards won’t be as bright.
<
p>
But, see, that’s not what they’re saying.
<
p>
Pat Buchanan has explained at length that he believes that we are witnessing a repeat of a historical pattern by which US civilization is being undermined and set up for a fall. Not “the future won’t be quite as bright” but “US civilization will collapse because of teh evul Mexicans.”
<
p>
Maybe, just maybe, it’s because of the White Chistian Guy history–George Washington and Jefferson and the whole lot of racist pigs–that we got civil rights, universal sufferage.
<
p>
Alright, look, this just glosses over a lot of non-white, non-male US history. Yes, there were white males who supported the Abolitionists, the Suffragists, and the Civil Rights activists — but the face of these movements were people like Frederick Douglass, Susan Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, W. E. B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.
david says
Gary, you’re usually a sensible fellow, so I’m surprised by your comment.
<
p>
Let’s start by getting the “male” and “Christian” variables out of this discussion. As I noted in the post, most people coming over from Mexico are Christian, and many are male. This is about race, and race only.
<
p>
Obviously, Washington, Madison, Jefferson & Co. were white (and male, and Christian). But that’s a far, far cry from saying that they had some good ideas because they were white. (Also, as you well know, none of them supported “universal suffrage,” so I’m not sure where you got that from.)
<
p>
But more important is how this plays out today. Your fundamental error, with all due respect, is defining “the identity that brought us to where we are” in terms of race — specifically, the white race. I’m frankly shocked that anyone with a national platform like O’Reilly’s would hold the view that certain policymakers (i.e., occupants of the current power structure) merit their position there because of their (white) race, yet that sure seems to be what O’Reilly is saying.
<
p>
And so, you see, it’s impossible to “debate what he really said” without talking about the race card. Because it’s O’Reilly himself who injected the race card into the discussion. And I’m saying he was wrong to do so.
<
p>
I mean, come on, gary. I honestly don’t care what race my president is (as is pretty obvious by now, I’m currently a Richardson fan), nor do I care what race my Governor (black), US senator (both white), state senator (white), US representative (white), state rep (white), etc. are. Nor, I would venture, do you (though feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about that). So why defend a loser like O’Reilly, who seems to think that it’s important to keep white people at the policymaking helm because they’re white? Whatever happened to debating ideas and policies on their merits?
raj says
…you would find that most of the Founding Fathers were not Christian, but Masons. Theists, but hardly Christian.
bob-neer says
Alexander Hamilton might be considered black, right along with Mr. O’Reilly, by many definitions. And women played just as big a role in the founding of this country as men: without women, there wouldn’t BE any men, so if you’re looking for “but for” causality, let’s start with them. The truth is the story of this country is very complex.
gary says
Ok, without women there’d be no men and the story of the country is very complex.
<
p>
Now that the obvious is out of the way, analyze this: look across the decades, across the Senate now and past, across the House of Representatives, present and past, all our presidents, governors, state and local politicians, all our CEOs past and present.
<
p>
Assign a predominating demographic to that group. I’m just guessing, but I’m thinking White, Old, Christian, Men.
<
p>
Correlation ain’t causation, but for better or worse, it’s not a big stretch to see that old christian white guys are the demographic that brought us–for the most part–to the point we’re at today. How can that statement be wrong?
<
p>
Now, I’m no real fan of pat buchanan or bill o’reilly. Even Nixon thought Buchanan was too socially conservative and O’Reilly’s a little too slick. But, the words they/he spoke don’t tell me he or Buchanan are racist.
<
p>
Here’s a quote:
<
p>
<
p>
Racist, the guy who said it?
david says
You even say in your post, “correlation ain’t causation.” Exactly.
<
p>
Yet that is the error that O’Reilly and Buchanan make. It’s exactly the same error that, around 100 years ago when Irish immigrants flooded into the cities, the white Protestant power structure freaked out and “No Irish Need Apply” became famous. Yet, oddly, the country has survived largely intact, despite the ascendancy of persons of Irish descent in certain major cities and Fox News broadcasts. No difference here.
<
p>
So, as I asked downthread, why defend O’Reilly and Buchanan? Why not call them out for who they are, so that we can have a real, non-tainted debate on the important issue of immigration reform?
<
p>
Oh, and to your final question: no one’s talking about being ashamed of being white — that’s such a strawman, and you know it. But O’Reilly wants to say that white people deserve to stay in power because they’re white. Sorry, but I have a hard time defending that point of view.
gary says
<
p>
You must know him better than I if you know what he wants to say.
<
p>
But to remove the race card, let’s rephrase to say that the US today–for better or not–is the culmination of decisions made principally by people of western european descent in a society where male historically controlled the power.
<
p>
Should policies for the future encourage or abandon that power base?
anthony says
…is a different point entirely. If someone said “white people are shameful” that quote would be an appropriate response. Problem is that O’Reiley ain’t talking about a historical context, he is talking about the here and now. Anyone who indicates that we need to preserve white Christian dominance right now is a racist. What you say he meant by his statement is not what he said. Why oh why are you even stretching to defend it? No one is saying being white is bad. People are saying being a racist is bad, which is not the same thing.
sabutai says
…and you’ll find that even the theism is questionable. There is nothing conclusive, but there were enough loose quotes to consider if these men had what some people call “faith”:
<
p>
“Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” T Jefferson
<
p>
“God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.” J Adams
<
p>
“Each of those churches [Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, etc.] accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.” T Paine
goldsteingonewild says
…the one that O’Reilly referred to.
<
p>
I was curious about what it said. So I looked it up. Here’s a few grafs:
<
p>
<
p>
According to the Census Bureau, from mid-2005 to mid-2006, the U.S. minority population rose 2.4 million, to exceed 100 million. Hispanics, 1 percent of the population in 1950, are now 14.4 percent. Their total number has soared 25 percent since 2000 alone. The Asian population has also grown by 25 percent since 2000.
<
p>
The number of white kids of school age fell 4 percent, however. Half the children 5 and younger in the United States are now minorities.
<
p>
What is happening to us?
<
p>
An immigrant invasion of the United States from the Third World, as America’s white majority is no longer even reproducing itself. Since Roe v. Wade, America has aborted 45 million of her children. And Asia, Africa and Latin America have sent 45 million of their children to inherit the estate the aborted American children never saw. God is not mocked.
<
p>
And white America is in flight.
david says
Well, like I said, at least these guys have decided to be open about their motivations. It’s not about security, or jobs, or about fairness to would-be-immigrants who are waiting in line in their home countries. It’s about keeping America white.
<
p>
Thanks for digging this up, GGW.
fairdeal says
i can tell you that people of mexican descent are going to be the salvation of my rural county in texas.
<
p>
fifteen years ago, it seemed like every town in the county was drying up. the predominately white towns in the county all had a high number of working age people on welfare or bogus disability claims. there was very little community pride to be seen. lots of trailers with empty beer cans and cigarette cartons and blue walmart bags strewn across the mud out front. just no mojo.
<
p>
and in the last fifteen years, there has been a marked increase in the hispanic population. and where i used to see a lot of beatdown white rednecks, now i’m seeing big vibrant families with moms and dads. who work, a lot. and who fill up the churches on wednesday nights and sundays. and who start businesses. and who buy stuff besides cigarettes and frozen pizzas. and whose kids keep showing up in the honor roll list in the local paper. and who are bringing up the community like they belong and like they care.
<
p>
and at least in my family homestead, i say . . yeah, damn right this is what i’d like to see more of !
<
p>
bob-neer says
Let ’em in. The more immigrants, the more prosperity. That’s one of the stories of America.
sabrinaqedesha says
John Gibson tipped his hand a year ago when on the air he told white women that they aren’t doing their duty and having enough white babies.
<
p>
Combine this with the Bush Administration’s recent declaration that all women of childbearing age should be considered “pre-pregnant”, the war on same-sex marriage which is really a war for mandatory heterosexual marriage, and what do you get? A very clearly sexist and anti-gay attack on personal liberty and an agenda of racial domination. Their intent couldn’t be more plain if they wore white sheets and marched in the streets.