Replies to this ought to be directed to either the Non-Sports Related or Politics and Religion boards. [ ]
Finally, local news had an angle before last night's game about the so-called "mixed emotions" held by SF Bay Area Latinos over the game. One guy, in his early 20s, told the reporter he supported Mexico, "because it's my culture and heritage." What does that say about his failure to assimilate into American culture, if not reject it outright? Heritage I can understand, but you'll never find me rooting for Romania or cheering for the Czechs - unless it was 20 years ago and they were playing the Russians. And no, I'm not trying to make a loyalty litmus test out of soccer preferences, but those same 20 years ago, before multiculturalism and visions of "Aztlan" were dangled before so many untutored minds, I wonder if this dilemma would have even presented itself. Herr Zimmerman - he of the eponymous telegram - must be smiling in his grave; anybody else have any thoughts on this subject?
Full Version: Soccer Politics - YOU Make The Call!
[quote] What does that say about his failure to assimilate into American culture, if not reject it outright?
What is so terrible about failing to assimilate? And why is it that "American" culture is always read as Anglo-American culture? This idea that you have to renounce any "foreign" allegiance to be considered a true American is one of the things I will never understand about this country (I'm Canadian). I can't imagine any Canadian suggesting any sort of litmus test for "real" Canadians except as a joke. And here's some food for thought to those who blame Canada's multicultural policies for Quebec separatism--forty years of Quebec separatism haven't produced a tenth the body count of a week of race riots in L.A.
Why don't you assimilate into the dominant heterosexual culture?
What is so terrible about failing to assimilate? And why is it that "American" culture is always read as Anglo-American culture? This idea that you have to renounce any "foreign" allegiance to be considered a true American is one of the things I will never understand about this country (I'm Canadian). I can't imagine any Canadian suggesting any sort of litmus test for "real" Canadians except as a joke. And here's some food for thought to those who blame Canada's multicultural policies for Quebec separatism--forty years of Quebec separatism haven't produced a tenth the body count of a week of race riots in L.A.
Why don't you assimilate into the dominant heterosexual culture?
JC, The very nature of citizenship stems from sovereignty, which together mean one government speaking for and protecting and serving one people, who in turn pledge their allegiance to that government. Newfangled notions of "dual citizenship" aside, there's nothing wrong with requiring citizens to support their country with their allegiance solely to it. As I said, and you misinterpreted, that doesn't mean looking for litmus tests on the soccer field. However, it is symptomatic of the decline in allegiance that we Americans have suffered over the past several decades. Not to be curt, but if you as a Canadian can't understand that, I'm reduced to telling you, "trust me, it's an American thing."
There ARE differences between our two nations and cultures and there's nothing wrong with recognzing - or even "celebrating" (whither diversity now?) - that fact.
As to the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon culture in both our countries, that stems from the Founders' adopting the "common law of England" as our own upon our independence. Would you have us instead looked to the unenlightened despotism of Spain or France for our legal and governmental heritage? Thankfully not, I think, as best evidenced by what those systems have reaped around the world in comparison to the progeny of Parliament and the offspring of Magna Carta. No, I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Thank God I'm a surrogate Englishman!"
As for assimilating into heterosexual culture, frustrated cheap shots aside (like in the closing minutes of last night's game), that's not the issue. The issue is where one places one's national allegiance. If it's to a culture and legal system that for all its faults nevertheless proves itself over and over again to be the most receptive to advancing our individual rights and freedoms in a fair and ordely fashion, however long it seems to take, then I'm there. On the other hand, if given a choice between having to assimilate into a straight free culture or a gay politically correct one, where dissent isn't tolerated and crackpot notions are given the force of reason, guess which one I'll take?
There ARE differences between our two nations and cultures and there's nothing wrong with recognzing - or even "celebrating" (whither diversity now?) - that fact.
As to the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon culture in both our countries, that stems from the Founders' adopting the "common law of England" as our own upon our independence. Would you have us instead looked to the unenlightened despotism of Spain or France for our legal and governmental heritage? Thankfully not, I think, as best evidenced by what those systems have reaped around the world in comparison to the progeny of Parliament and the offspring of Magna Carta. No, I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Thank God I'm a surrogate Englishman!"
As for assimilating into heterosexual culture, frustrated cheap shots aside (like in the closing minutes of last night's game), that's not the issue. The issue is where one places one's national allegiance. If it's to a culture and legal system that for all its faults nevertheless proves itself over and over again to be the most receptive to advancing our individual rights and freedoms in a fair and ordely fashion, however long it seems to take, then I'm there. On the other hand, if given a choice between having to assimilate into a straight free culture or a gay politically correct one, where dissent isn't tolerated and crackpot notions are given the force of reason, guess which one I'll take?
[quote]Originally posted by JC:
And why is it that "American" culture is always read as Anglo-American culture?
How does supporting the soccer team of the nation in which you claim citizenship read as Anglo-American culture? According to just about every nation except the US our dominant Anglo culture has no appreciation of real football.
And why is it that "American" culture is always read as Anglo-American culture?
How does supporting the soccer team of the nation in which you claim citizenship read as Anglo-American culture? According to just about every nation except the US our dominant Anglo culture has no appreciation of real football.
Heterosexism is part of the American cultural and (in Texas and many other states) legal system. It's not so long since the Supreme Court ruled that these laws in defense of "public decency" and protecting the longstanding American disapproval of homosexual practices were acceptable.
It seems to me you're the one who wants to stifle dissent--in particular to stifle criticism of the U.S. government and system. What an odd view of freedom. If you don't have the right to choose whether or not you wish to adhere to the dominant cultural norms, what freedom do you really have? Since free people will make different choices, any genuinely free society will be a diverse one. Many people came to the U.S. in the beginning specifically because they wouldn't be forced to assimilate or be discriminated against because they didn't ascribe to the state religion. Why do people in California get so uptight about Mexican Americans choosing to maintain their language and culture? Why not complain about the Amish, the German-speaking communities in central Texas, or the St. Patrick's Day parade?
Jqueer, I was responding to the general tone of the remarks--and assimilationists characteristically narrow the actual scope of American culture. American culture is not just a transplant of English culture but has incorporated many traditions. That classic American icon, the cowboy, is largely Mexican in origin. American popular music has roots in Africa, to name just a few obvious examples.
It seems to me you're the one who wants to stifle dissent--in particular to stifle criticism of the U.S. government and system. What an odd view of freedom. If you don't have the right to choose whether or not you wish to adhere to the dominant cultural norms, what freedom do you really have? Since free people will make different choices, any genuinely free society will be a diverse one. Many people came to the U.S. in the beginning specifically because they wouldn't be forced to assimilate or be discriminated against because they didn't ascribe to the state religion. Why do people in California get so uptight about Mexican Americans choosing to maintain their language and culture? Why not complain about the Amish, the German-speaking communities in central Texas, or the St. Patrick's Day parade?
Jqueer, I was responding to the general tone of the remarks--and assimilationists characteristically narrow the actual scope of American culture. American culture is not just a transplant of English culture but has incorporated many traditions. That classic American icon, the cowboy, is largely Mexican in origin. American popular music has roots in Africa, to name just a few obvious examples.
JC, I have never remotely hinted I want to stifle dissent; indeed, the argument can be made that I'm one of the biggest dissenters on this board. Regardless, there's nothing in anything I've ever written to support that claim. What there is are posts expressing my own views, which I don't see elsewhere and feel merit expression. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste time posting them. Others may well disagree, and they're welcome to, but I will just as surely keep coming back with more. That's what debate is all about.
To answer your question why Californians are so sensitive about MexAms choosing to maintain their language and culture, that's not the source of discontent, nor does anyone fault them for it. Fast food for me consists of a burrito from a Mom and Pop taqueria and I'm really thankful to live in a state where these cultural options are available. Like the examples you cite, these are positive contributions to our society. What a lot of Californians don't like, though, are the public resources of the state going to support any single culture and forcing it down our throats with programs imposing tolerance and diversity that denigrate the spontaneous sense of community and real unity which stem from earned, not enforced, respect and make a healthily diverse society function well.
The Amish or Germans in TX aren't clogging the welfare rolls or overburdening public services through illegal immigration, and the Irish achieved their position in our society through assimilating into, and all the while enhancing, it, not stubbornly standing apart from it while selfishly taking from it. Like it or not, it's a fact that in California - as in TX and elsewhere - there are many illegal immigrants of all nationalities who are tooling this state for all it's worth, and who make a daily mockery of the hard work their fellow Californians do to support themselves and their families without resorting to the dole or, worse, rub salt into the wound by turning their backs on those whose largess they self-righteously claim for their own.
It's too bad it took a soccer game to bring this division to the fore, but it'd be far worse to ignore it and hope, foolishly, that if we can't "all just get along," then if we don't talk openly about these things maybe they will all just go away.
To answer your question why Californians are so sensitive about MexAms choosing to maintain their language and culture, that's not the source of discontent, nor does anyone fault them for it. Fast food for me consists of a burrito from a Mom and Pop taqueria and I'm really thankful to live in a state where these cultural options are available. Like the examples you cite, these are positive contributions to our society. What a lot of Californians don't like, though, are the public resources of the state going to support any single culture and forcing it down our throats with programs imposing tolerance and diversity that denigrate the spontaneous sense of community and real unity which stem from earned, not enforced, respect and make a healthily diverse society function well.
The Amish or Germans in TX aren't clogging the welfare rolls or overburdening public services through illegal immigration, and the Irish achieved their position in our society through assimilating into, and all the while enhancing, it, not stubbornly standing apart from it while selfishly taking from it. Like it or not, it's a fact that in California - as in TX and elsewhere - there are many illegal immigrants of all nationalities who are tooling this state for all it's worth, and who make a daily mockery of the hard work their fellow Californians do to support themselves and their families without resorting to the dole or, worse, rub salt into the wound by turning their backs on those whose largess they self-righteously claim for their own.
It's too bad it took a soccer game to bring this division to the fore, but it'd be far worse to ignore it and hope, foolishly, that if we can't "all just get along," then if we don't talk openly about these things maybe they will all just go away.
To me this is the same as Americans living abroad still rooting for the USA in a sporting event, even if they've lived in their adopted country for years. No big deal.
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
No, I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Thank God I'm a surrogate Englishman!"
You've never said that out loud in your life, you pretentious ponce.
[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]
No, I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Thank God I'm a surrogate Englishman!"
You've never said that out loud in your life, you pretentious ponce.
[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]
BTW, Louisiana is governed under Napoleonic law.
JQ, "Ponce" as in Ponce de Leon? Or ponce(It.) as in Punch & Judy? Or did you mean to say "pounce," as in jump to [the wrong] conclusions? I can't find it in OED or Webster's so please educate me.
If you talk to my colleagues, you'll be able to confirm that I have said that expression aloud on occasion in our lunchtime debates at work. It usually gets a laugh, but a grimace greets it too. Sorry if it sounds pretentious, but it's the truth. Lawyers tend to talk that way; you should hear them carry on!
As LA is the only civil law state in the Union, its laws date from Napoleonic times, but are not "Napoleonic" in origin or scope. The Emperor's Code Civil, based on Roman civil, not English common, law was not adopted in France until 1804, a year after the Louisiana Purchase brought that former Spanish territory (until 1800) into the US, with all its attendant benefits. Today, some argue that parts of this former French territory should be included in "Aztlan," the mythical Mexican province alluded to in an earlier post. I do not share that delusion, but hold that all lands north and west of the Ohio River, as well as those similarly situated as to the Mississippi, once rightfully were, like Louisiana's laws, the property of the ancien regime.
Sorry, but you asked for it! (And we haven't even started in on Brazil and the Portuguese! See what happens when I stay up late watching soccer?)
If you talk to my colleagues, you'll be able to confirm that I have said that expression aloud on occasion in our lunchtime debates at work. It usually gets a laugh, but a grimace greets it too. Sorry if it sounds pretentious, but it's the truth. Lawyers tend to talk that way; you should hear them carry on!
As LA is the only civil law state in the Union, its laws date from Napoleonic times, but are not "Napoleonic" in origin or scope. The Emperor's Code Civil, based on Roman civil, not English common, law was not adopted in France until 1804, a year after the Louisiana Purchase brought that former Spanish territory (until 1800) into the US, with all its attendant benefits. Today, some argue that parts of this former French territory should be included in "Aztlan," the mythical Mexican province alluded to in an earlier post. I do not share that delusion, but hold that all lands north and west of the Ohio River, as well as those similarly situated as to the Mississippi, once rightfully were, like Louisiana's laws, the property of the ancien regime.
Sorry, but you asked for it! (And we haven't even started in on Brazil and the Portuguese! See what happens when I stay up late watching soccer?)
Ponce as in the common English (that would be the nationality rather than the language) insult indicating effeminance and homosexuality. See also pouf, poof, poofdah, poofta, poofter, fairy, queen, pickle kisser, sissy pants, lavender cowboy, three-dollar bill and gentleman of the back room (that's ignoring all the euphamisms about anal sex: I found a great website.)
And anyway what soccer? There's nothing on until, oh my goodness, 11:30 your time. Is that past your beddybye time?
And anyway what soccer? There's nothing on until, oh my goodness, 11:30 your time. Is that past your beddybye time?
Sorry, JQ, no go on "ponce." It's not in my copy of "The Queen's Vernacular," either. I'll grant you're better at common insults than I am, however uncommon they are.
Time for this thread to be in bed.
Time for this thread to be in bed.
seriously for a moment, but only a moment, I'm surprised that "ponce" is not in a dictionary of the vernacular, particularly one based on British vulgarisms. From my experience of the British vernacular, admitedly limited to books by British authors and movies and television from British directors, "ponce" is a fairly common insult. And, frankly the only reasons I used it was because a) it was a British equivalent of "fag" (of course calling someone a fag in the UK gets you puzzled looks and offers of cigarettes) and you were ranting about English common law, 
it was alliterative with "pretensious" and c) it wasn't "poof" or any of its overused derivatives.
it was alliterative with "pretensious" and c) it wasn't "poof" or any of its overused derivatives.
ok let me jump in here and inject a bit of civility to the discussion at hand.
speaking as a korean native, naturalised US citizen and futbol fanatic.... I think what Jim said was perfectly correct. If a yank were to live in England, Japan, Korea wherever... for business or whatever else, would it be so strange to see him cheer for america? Would you fault him?
I also don't see why cheering for one's birth country in a soccer match is seen as treason or betrayal of the country itself.
You stated, "there's nothing wrong with requiring citizens to support their country with their allegiance solely to it" But why does requirement of allegiance to one's country (politically), enter into a discussion about sports?
Hasn't it been one of the heralded hallmarks of sporting events (especially the olympic games) that politics is (for the most part) kept OUT of them?
It is apparent gmgsinfo, that there are other issues boiling in you besides the "I cheer for Mexico" sentiment.
you said "...public resources of the state going to support any single culture and forcing it down our throats with programs imposing tolerance and diversity that denigrate the spontaneous sense of community..."
I'm sorry. But a sense of community is NOT mutually exclusive of tolerance and diversity. Often times, you'll find that tolerance and diversity PROMOTES the sense of community. Community does not always mean homogeneity.
As for the "clogging welfare rolls ...through illegal immigration.." comment... illegal imigrants do not qualify for welfare. In the US, there are hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. They are from Mexico, Guatemala, China, Korea, Cote D'Ivoire etc etc. They are not on the dole here. They are working under the radar of the US gov't. fearful of deportation. and often working for less than minimum wage while living 5,10,15 in a single apartment so that they can send money back to their family.
If you want to see who really is "clogging the welfare rolls.." you have to look at the native born americans (including many of german and irish descent) to see who receives the monthly govt check. or since you are a transplanted brit(??) lok and see all the british lads on the dole and seeking no end to remedy the situation.
You say that the irish and germans are now competely assimilated and do not stand apart from it. Isn't the St. Patrick's Day parade a sign of Irish nationalism? Do you fault them for that?
The Germans have Oktoberfest. Should that be stopped? Here in Louisville Kentucky (in the heart of america)there are Irish neighbourhoods with families who go back to Ireland to visit relatives regularly (and yes, they cheered for Ireland in the world cup). There are german neighbourhoods. There is a German Social Club. many italians who speak of italy as hteir home and many other nationalities. Are they being unpatriotic? I don't think so.
If I went to Yale for med school but went to Georgetown for college, should I all of a sudden drop my enthusiasm for Hoya athletics?
and staying with the louisville reference... I can tell you that the welfare rolls here are chock full of irish, german, african, british, scottish.
lastly, to address the possibility that immigrants do NOT become assimilated to the notion of the US as their country....
First of all, I love this country. it is the land of the greatest ECONOMIC opportunity. but when you say it is a ".... culture and legal system that for all its faults nevertheless proves itself over and over again to be the most receptive to advancing our individual rights and freedoms..."
That statement is often said by chest thumping "americans" who say that the US can do no wrong (I live in Louisville. I hear that statement a lot) But in comparison with Sweden and Norway, to name a few, the US is NOT "the most receptive to advancing individual rights and freedoms..." just look at the issues facing you as a gay man for example and compare systems.
let me preamble by saying that I am a republican, I am a US citizen and I am a patriot of this country. However, that does not blind me to the fact that many immigrants do not fully feel a part of this country because the rest of america constantly tells them that they are NOT AMERICAN.
Do you think that racial bias against mexicans doesn't exist in the american populace? I would suggest you re-read your posts.
Do you think I'm not reminded on a regular basis that I'm not american because I "look chinese" (I'm korean)
It's not "an american thing" (the canadians do understand) alienation and prejudice are universal.
speaking as a korean native, naturalised US citizen and futbol fanatic.... I think what Jim said was perfectly correct. If a yank were to live in England, Japan, Korea wherever... for business or whatever else, would it be so strange to see him cheer for america? Would you fault him?
I also don't see why cheering for one's birth country in a soccer match is seen as treason or betrayal of the country itself.
You stated, "there's nothing wrong with requiring citizens to support their country with their allegiance solely to it" But why does requirement of allegiance to one's country (politically), enter into a discussion about sports?
Hasn't it been one of the heralded hallmarks of sporting events (especially the olympic games) that politics is (for the most part) kept OUT of them?
It is apparent gmgsinfo, that there are other issues boiling in you besides the "I cheer for Mexico" sentiment.
you said "...public resources of the state going to support any single culture and forcing it down our throats with programs imposing tolerance and diversity that denigrate the spontaneous sense of community..."
I'm sorry. But a sense of community is NOT mutually exclusive of tolerance and diversity. Often times, you'll find that tolerance and diversity PROMOTES the sense of community. Community does not always mean homogeneity.
As for the "clogging welfare rolls ...through illegal immigration.." comment... illegal imigrants do not qualify for welfare. In the US, there are hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. They are from Mexico, Guatemala, China, Korea, Cote D'Ivoire etc etc. They are not on the dole here. They are working under the radar of the US gov't. fearful of deportation. and often working for less than minimum wage while living 5,10,15 in a single apartment so that they can send money back to their family.
If you want to see who really is "clogging the welfare rolls.." you have to look at the native born americans (including many of german and irish descent) to see who receives the monthly govt check. or since you are a transplanted brit(??) lok and see all the british lads on the dole and seeking no end to remedy the situation.
You say that the irish and germans are now competely assimilated and do not stand apart from it. Isn't the St. Patrick's Day parade a sign of Irish nationalism? Do you fault them for that?
The Germans have Oktoberfest. Should that be stopped? Here in Louisville Kentucky (in the heart of america)there are Irish neighbourhoods with families who go back to Ireland to visit relatives regularly (and yes, they cheered for Ireland in the world cup). There are german neighbourhoods. There is a German Social Club. many italians who speak of italy as hteir home and many other nationalities. Are they being unpatriotic? I don't think so.
If I went to Yale for med school but went to Georgetown for college, should I all of a sudden drop my enthusiasm for Hoya athletics?
and staying with the louisville reference... I can tell you that the welfare rolls here are chock full of irish, german, african, british, scottish.
lastly, to address the possibility that immigrants do NOT become assimilated to the notion of the US as their country....
First of all, I love this country. it is the land of the greatest ECONOMIC opportunity. but when you say it is a ".... culture and legal system that for all its faults nevertheless proves itself over and over again to be the most receptive to advancing our individual rights and freedoms..."
That statement is often said by chest thumping "americans" who say that the US can do no wrong (I live in Louisville. I hear that statement a lot) But in comparison with Sweden and Norway, to name a few, the US is NOT "the most receptive to advancing individual rights and freedoms..." just look at the issues facing you as a gay man for example and compare systems.
let me preamble by saying that I am a republican, I am a US citizen and I am a patriot of this country. However, that does not blind me to the fact that many immigrants do not fully feel a part of this country because the rest of america constantly tells them that they are NOT AMERICAN.
Do you think that racial bias against mexicans doesn't exist in the american populace? I would suggest you re-read your posts.
Do you think I'm not reminded on a regular basis that I'm not american because I "look chinese" (I'm korean)
It's not "an american thing" (the canadians do understand) alienation and prejudice are universal.
Thanks, ung, for bringing this back to civility. You make some good points, not all of which I agree with, but all well stated. Let me reply.
1. The "Yankee abroad" analogy is inapt because we're talking about American citizens, presumably, rooting for another country in their own country. That's not the same as a Yank overseas for a spell cheering on his compatriots. Assuming we're talking about a Yank who's adopted the citizenship of another country, well then, isn't there a bit of an internal conflict going on there, one that might rile his new fellow citizens as well? But I don't think that's what we're talking about here, and in more than just one sense. Other countries don't have the same sense of nationalism we do. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing, but it is what makes us as Americans unique. It's how we view ourselves. It's part of what unites us into our culture.
2. Soccer cheering =/= treason. I've reread my posts and I never said it was. What I have said is that in this context of the Mexico-USA match, it is symptomatic of the mixed loyalty that many Latinos not only hold in their hearts but which is codified in Mexican law allowing for dual citizenship. I've never suggested anywhere that this amounts to treason; what I have said is that in the context of the State of California - and this might apply equally to the region from Texas to Arizona - where a serious belief is entertained and broadcast that this land was somehow "stolen" from Mexico (cf. the Gadsden Purchase and the Mexican War, generally), and ought to be returned to Mexico, that it grates on those of us who recognize this for the nonsense it is. You might not hear this in KY; here we get it all the time.
3. And why does this grate so? Because, in California at least, at the same time these people are agitating for the return of their mythical "Aztlan," they ARE on the dole. Ung, I work for the CA Atty. General. Welfare fraud, criminal law, corrections ... the whole spectrum of human misbehavior is my sandbox and I see what goes on and know from personal experience that illegal immigrants DO get welfare from both the state and local governments. In SF, the situation for those of us who own our homes and pay property taxes on them is especially disheartening. Anyone can come to SF, fill out a form and automatically collect $433 a month on welfare, over and above what the state and feds might give him. And what do these people do with it? I take it you've never been to SF and witnessed firsthand, as I do on a daily baasis, the absolute depravity in which these slackers live. Open public defecation, not "just" urination anymore, overt drug dealing and abuse, arson (two churches which foolishly operated shelters for the so-called "homeless" burned to the ground within a year of each other as a result of crack cooking gone out of control), and murder under the guise of "assisted suicide" are regular occurrences here. Sure, it doesn't help that we have a DA who revels in calling himself a Communist - his label, not mine - and thinks it criminal to enforce the laws against these people or police welfare fraud as he should, leaving it to my office to do so instead, but these are real things, ung, that go on everyday and illegal immigrants are part of it.
4. There is no inconsistency between a sense of community and diversity and tolerance. Again, I never said there was. What I did say was that forcing acceptance is not the way to achieve any of these three markers of a healthy society, whether the issue is immigration or gay rights. When you are bombarded on a daily basis, as we in CA are, with pedantic tirades steeped in political rectitude about the worthlessness of traditional American (OK, read, Anglo-Saxon law and culture based) society, how those of us who accept it are somehow "cold-hearted and unfeeling," and how other cultures, particularly Latino cultures, are somehow more "loving, understanding and accepting," the point comes where you DO feel you're being attacked as it's being shoved down your throat and some of us recoil and rebel. Our anger is hardly misdirected, because the ones doing the shoving - the same slackers, or worse, their moneyed and usually overeducated supporters who ought to know better - are the recipients of it. I've never said anything about enforcing homogeneity; the vision of those who would force "community" upon us is nothing but Groupthink couched in the language of Newspeak.
5. Finally, you make some good points about prejudice and discrimination and I'm all with you on that. When I did a year in LA at one of my old firms I was disgusted by the casualness with which Mexican jokes were told and enjoyed. I've reread my posts and dispute any claim that there's a hint of racism in any of them.* And let's not forget that before I joined the AG I did a lot of civil rights work of all kinds, although I'm happy to say I never represented prisoners. So please don't conflate legitimate criticism of some social issues with mindless racism across the board. You sound like too smart a guy for that.
Chest thumper or not, I've never said the US can do no wrong; far from it! Nor would I close down St. Patrick's Day Parades, Biergartens, pizza parlors, or any of the other things you mention; we can both laugh over the ridiculousness of such an idea. But you err in saying that "many immigrants do not fully feel a part of this country because the rest of america constantly tells them that they are NOT AMERICAN." Here, we're talking about a group which has chosen to set themselves apart, instead of being kept out by others. Are they therefore immune from criticism for setting themselves apart? No, you can't have it both ways.
To conclude, yes, I'm sure I do have issues other than those relating solely to soccer sympathies; I'm a law and order guy and I see a lot of problems that exist in this country stemming from our laxity in strictly and evenly enforcing the laws we have, instead of inventing more to solve each problem as it arises. But I submit my beliefs are not prejudices, but well-reasoned opinions, based upon facts and experience, not stereotypes nor conjecture. If you don't agree with them fine, continue to post reasoned replies, but please don't stretch them beyond what I actually said. And by no means feel offended or set apart by me or anyone else. At the risk of sounding cliche, I'd say you're the kind of immigrant we need more of and we're all better for your being among us today, just as my ancestors added value to the US when they came here in the early 1900s. I hope we understand each other; I think we'd get along.
______
*If by "racism" you are referring to my preference for burritos, if anything that's acceptance of a positive contribution to American, from Mexican, culture. East of the Mississippi, though, I'll stick with White Castles. Either way, expressing a food preference is not racist, especially when it's a like, not a dislike. (And I like Korean BBQ too, except for all the smoke that gets in my eyes!)
1. The "Yankee abroad" analogy is inapt because we're talking about American citizens, presumably, rooting for another country in their own country. That's not the same as a Yank overseas for a spell cheering on his compatriots. Assuming we're talking about a Yank who's adopted the citizenship of another country, well then, isn't there a bit of an internal conflict going on there, one that might rile his new fellow citizens as well? But I don't think that's what we're talking about here, and in more than just one sense. Other countries don't have the same sense of nationalism we do. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing, but it is what makes us as Americans unique. It's how we view ourselves. It's part of what unites us into our culture.
2. Soccer cheering =/= treason. I've reread my posts and I never said it was. What I have said is that in this context of the Mexico-USA match, it is symptomatic of the mixed loyalty that many Latinos not only hold in their hearts but which is codified in Mexican law allowing for dual citizenship. I've never suggested anywhere that this amounts to treason; what I have said is that in the context of the State of California - and this might apply equally to the region from Texas to Arizona - where a serious belief is entertained and broadcast that this land was somehow "stolen" from Mexico (cf. the Gadsden Purchase and the Mexican War, generally), and ought to be returned to Mexico, that it grates on those of us who recognize this for the nonsense it is. You might not hear this in KY; here we get it all the time.
3. And why does this grate so? Because, in California at least, at the same time these people are agitating for the return of their mythical "Aztlan," they ARE on the dole. Ung, I work for the CA Atty. General. Welfare fraud, criminal law, corrections ... the whole spectrum of human misbehavior is my sandbox and I see what goes on and know from personal experience that illegal immigrants DO get welfare from both the state and local governments. In SF, the situation for those of us who own our homes and pay property taxes on them is especially disheartening. Anyone can come to SF, fill out a form and automatically collect $433 a month on welfare, over and above what the state and feds might give him. And what do these people do with it? I take it you've never been to SF and witnessed firsthand, as I do on a daily baasis, the absolute depravity in which these slackers live. Open public defecation, not "just" urination anymore, overt drug dealing and abuse, arson (two churches which foolishly operated shelters for the so-called "homeless" burned to the ground within a year of each other as a result of crack cooking gone out of control), and murder under the guise of "assisted suicide" are regular occurrences here. Sure, it doesn't help that we have a DA who revels in calling himself a Communist - his label, not mine - and thinks it criminal to enforce the laws against these people or police welfare fraud as he should, leaving it to my office to do so instead, but these are real things, ung, that go on everyday and illegal immigrants are part of it.
4. There is no inconsistency between a sense of community and diversity and tolerance. Again, I never said there was. What I did say was that forcing acceptance is not the way to achieve any of these three markers of a healthy society, whether the issue is immigration or gay rights. When you are bombarded on a daily basis, as we in CA are, with pedantic tirades steeped in political rectitude about the worthlessness of traditional American (OK, read, Anglo-Saxon law and culture based) society, how those of us who accept it are somehow "cold-hearted and unfeeling," and how other cultures, particularly Latino cultures, are somehow more "loving, understanding and accepting," the point comes where you DO feel you're being attacked as it's being shoved down your throat and some of us recoil and rebel. Our anger is hardly misdirected, because the ones doing the shoving - the same slackers, or worse, their moneyed and usually overeducated supporters who ought to know better - are the recipients of it. I've never said anything about enforcing homogeneity; the vision of those who would force "community" upon us is nothing but Groupthink couched in the language of Newspeak.
5. Finally, you make some good points about prejudice and discrimination and I'm all with you on that. When I did a year in LA at one of my old firms I was disgusted by the casualness with which Mexican jokes were told and enjoyed. I've reread my posts and dispute any claim that there's a hint of racism in any of them.* And let's not forget that before I joined the AG I did a lot of civil rights work of all kinds, although I'm happy to say I never represented prisoners. So please don't conflate legitimate criticism of some social issues with mindless racism across the board. You sound like too smart a guy for that.
Chest thumper or not, I've never said the US can do no wrong; far from it! Nor would I close down St. Patrick's Day Parades, Biergartens, pizza parlors, or any of the other things you mention; we can both laugh over the ridiculousness of such an idea. But you err in saying that "many immigrants do not fully feel a part of this country because the rest of america constantly tells them that they are NOT AMERICAN." Here, we're talking about a group which has chosen to set themselves apart, instead of being kept out by others. Are they therefore immune from criticism for setting themselves apart? No, you can't have it both ways.
To conclude, yes, I'm sure I do have issues other than those relating solely to soccer sympathies; I'm a law and order guy and I see a lot of problems that exist in this country stemming from our laxity in strictly and evenly enforcing the laws we have, instead of inventing more to solve each problem as it arises. But I submit my beliefs are not prejudices, but well-reasoned opinions, based upon facts and experience, not stereotypes nor conjecture. If you don't agree with them fine, continue to post reasoned replies, but please don't stretch them beyond what I actually said. And by no means feel offended or set apart by me or anyone else. At the risk of sounding cliche, I'd say you're the kind of immigrant we need more of and we're all better for your being among us today, just as my ancestors added value to the US when they came here in the early 1900s. I hope we understand each other; I think we'd get along.
______
*If by "racism" you are referring to my preference for burritos, if anything that's acceptance of a positive contribution to American, from Mexican, culture. East of the Mississippi, though, I'll stick with White Castles. Either way, expressing a food preference is not racist, especially when it's a like, not a dislike. (And I like Korean BBQ too, except for all the smoke that gets in my eyes!)
On one hand, I can see how it bothers some people that Mexican-Americans, who expect to enjoy all the benefits and privileges of being American, end up supporting Mexico instead of the U.S. in the World Cup. I wouldn't call it treason or traitorous, but it does seem a bit hypocritical. But at the same time, I know how deep and powerful cultural identity can be. gmginsfo maintains that he doesn't root for Romanian or Czech teams over American ones, but I'm wondering if he and his family still speak Czech or Romanian, still have mostly friends from the old country instead of American friends, or still maintain values and social mores that are more Czech/Romanian than American. If you don't, gmginsfo, then I think this whole thing of rooting for Mexico to win the WC might be hard for you to understand.
Even though my family didn't move here until I was 7, boy oh boy, you will never see more enthusiastic supporters of American teams and players. Then again, we never have to deal with divided loyalties because my native country is pretty much a non-entity in sports. If the old country were ever to face the U.S. in a sporting event, I guess we'd probably root for our place of birth over the Americans, but more because they'd be such underdogs than anything else.
As far as fitting in, we are all super-patriotic because we are so grateful for all the freedoms and opportunities we have enjoyed here. That doesn't mean we haven't faced some prejudice. When we moved into our house (the first home my parents owned; they were so proud), a number of the neighbors shunned us because we were the first non-white family to move into the neighborhood. I have vivid memories of the old man across the street glaring at my brother and me every time we were out in the yard playing. But a lot of the folks were very nice to us from the start, and in time, my parents made a lot of friends in the neighborhood through the local tennis club.
One snowy day, sometime after the old man across the street died, my father noticed that the widow's driveway hadn't been cleared. My dad knocked on her door and offered to clear it for her, saying it was no big deal since he had a snowblower. She gratefully accepted (in Kansas City, you can't go anywhere without your car), and later thanked my parents by bringing over some homebaked cookies. My dad continued to help her out around the house, and she "paid back" my dad by bringing over food and goodies she made herself (she knew my mother didn't really enjoy cooking). My parents and the widow remained friends until she died. They never spoke of any bigotry or prejudice she might have been guilty of; they just got to know her as a person and allowed her a chance to get to know them.
Anytime human beings are involved, you're going to have both good and bad. We should be grateful that we live in a good country, but we can't expect to live in a perfect one. Does our country have faults and problems? Yes, of course, because we are a nation of imperfect human beings. If you're walking around with an angry sense of entitlement because perfection isn't being served to you on a silver platter, frankly, you're a selfish ingrate who's not helping matters any. It's way too easy to just sit around and criticize. Don't kid yourself; you're not being productive. It's a much more difficult task to reach out, sit down and talk with a person, and bridge the gap. But guess what? It's also a lot more productive.
[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
Even though my family didn't move here until I was 7, boy oh boy, you will never see more enthusiastic supporters of American teams and players. Then again, we never have to deal with divided loyalties because my native country is pretty much a non-entity in sports. If the old country were ever to face the U.S. in a sporting event, I guess we'd probably root for our place of birth over the Americans, but more because they'd be such underdogs than anything else.
As far as fitting in, we are all super-patriotic because we are so grateful for all the freedoms and opportunities we have enjoyed here. That doesn't mean we haven't faced some prejudice. When we moved into our house (the first home my parents owned; they were so proud), a number of the neighbors shunned us because we were the first non-white family to move into the neighborhood. I have vivid memories of the old man across the street glaring at my brother and me every time we were out in the yard playing. But a lot of the folks were very nice to us from the start, and in time, my parents made a lot of friends in the neighborhood through the local tennis club.
One snowy day, sometime after the old man across the street died, my father noticed that the widow's driveway hadn't been cleared. My dad knocked on her door and offered to clear it for her, saying it was no big deal since he had a snowblower. She gratefully accepted (in Kansas City, you can't go anywhere without your car), and later thanked my parents by bringing over some homebaked cookies. My dad continued to help her out around the house, and she "paid back" my dad by bringing over food and goodies she made herself (she knew my mother didn't really enjoy cooking). My parents and the widow remained friends until she died. They never spoke of any bigotry or prejudice she might have been guilty of; they just got to know her as a person and allowed her a chance to get to know them.
Anytime human beings are involved, you're going to have both good and bad. We should be grateful that we live in a good country, but we can't expect to live in a perfect one. Does our country have faults and problems? Yes, of course, because we are a nation of imperfect human beings. If you're walking around with an angry sense of entitlement because perfection isn't being served to you on a silver platter, frankly, you're a selfish ingrate who's not helping matters any. It's way too easy to just sit around and criticize. Don't kid yourself; you're not being productive. It's a much more difficult task to reach out, sit down and talk with a person, and bridge the gap. But guess what? It's also a lot more productive.
[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
I think that people can openly support the team of their birth (of their family, of their ancestors) is, if anything, a strength of the American ideals.
Certainly in Toronto we take pride in our many ethnic enclaves. The morning news sends reporters down to Little Italy or Mexican restaurants or Irish bars, just to cover the support that these fans are giving to their homeland. (Granted, Canada does not have a team in the World Cup, so it is a different situation. But during the Olympics I know many people in Canada support many different countries. And what's wrong with that?)
From today's online Toronto Star:
[quote] All along Bloor St. between Christie St. and Bathurst St., Koreans who'd been watching the game poured out of restaurants, bars and shops to celebrate the stunning victory. Police from 14 Division attempted to keep the crowd under control, but traffic slowed to a crawl as a crowd of 1,000 happy fans jumped into the street, waving flags, cheering and pouring champagne. There was even an impromptu ticker-tape parade as fans ripped up newspapers into tiny pieces and hurled them into the air.
...
In the midst of all the celebrating Koreans, a forlorn-looking Carmen Dolce half-heartedly waved a large Italian flag.
"I can't believe we lost. At least it was a good game, though,'' said Dolce, who'd been watching the game on College St. in Little Italy, but then wandered northwards to Bloor and Manning to take in the Korean celebration and show some Italian pride.
Dolce said he'd gotten some sympathetic handshakes from Korean fans
I think it's important in a multi-ethnic society that one is not ashamed of one's heritage. That's the strength of countries like the U.S. and Canada: that people from around the world can live amicably, respecting each other's heritage, but having a common goal. When you think of places like Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Middle East, India, south East Asia... where people have killed their own people--never mind people of another race.
I think it's important to know where you came from in order to appreciate where you are going.
[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: canmark ]
Certainly in Toronto we take pride in our many ethnic enclaves. The morning news sends reporters down to Little Italy or Mexican restaurants or Irish bars, just to cover the support that these fans are giving to their homeland. (Granted, Canada does not have a team in the World Cup, so it is a different situation. But during the Olympics I know many people in Canada support many different countries. And what's wrong with that?)
From today's online Toronto Star:
[quote] All along Bloor St. between Christie St. and Bathurst St., Koreans who'd been watching the game poured out of restaurants, bars and shops to celebrate the stunning victory. Police from 14 Division attempted to keep the crowd under control, but traffic slowed to a crawl as a crowd of 1,000 happy fans jumped into the street, waving flags, cheering and pouring champagne. There was even an impromptu ticker-tape parade as fans ripped up newspapers into tiny pieces and hurled them into the air.
...
In the midst of all the celebrating Koreans, a forlorn-looking Carmen Dolce half-heartedly waved a large Italian flag.
"I can't believe we lost. At least it was a good game, though,'' said Dolce, who'd been watching the game on College St. in Little Italy, but then wandered northwards to Bloor and Manning to take in the Korean celebration and show some Italian pride.
Dolce said he'd gotten some sympathetic handshakes from Korean fans
I think it's important in a multi-ethnic society that one is not ashamed of one's heritage. That's the strength of countries like the U.S. and Canada: that people from around the world can live amicably, respecting each other's heritage, but having a common goal. When you think of places like Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Middle East, India, south East Asia... where people have killed their own people--never mind people of another race.
I think it's important to know where you came from in order to appreciate where you are going.
[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: canmark ]
I have a slightly different perspective being Jewish. Israeli athletes to participate in international competition, but generally aren't on the level of American competitors. Team sports particularly lag behind in Israel. However, I do root for Israeli athletes and teams. If they were competing against Americans, I would feel torn, but would probably go with the Israelis if for no other reason they are the underdogs. I think I would also experience a sort of odd negative image of watching two teams I don't care about, meaning I wouldn't care so much about the outcome and simply be happy whoever won and disappointed for the loser.
let me (I hope) inject a bit of humour into this now.
I'm korean and therefore you'd expect me to root for Korea in their match against Espana. But as a gay man, I will root for all the hunky spanish men on the team. I'm torn! But in the end, I will choose superior bootie over the country of my birth.
Spain is the country where I will be in one week to visit my sweetie. So I have to root for Luis Enrique, Raul and the rest of Espana.
I'm korean and therefore you'd expect me to root for Korea in their match against Espana. But as a gay man, I will root for all the hunky spanish men on the team. I'm torn! But in the end, I will choose superior bootie over the country of my birth.
Spain is the country where I will be in one week to visit my sweetie. So I have to root for Luis Enrique, Raul and the rest of Espana.
And that's the point, ung...it really has nothing to do with political ideology or cultural assimilation or illegal immigrants or welfare reform. Why these topics even have to be injected into a comment on a sporting event is beyond me.
Simply put, we have the right to cheer for whichever teams we want. Even the Yankees.
Simply put, we have the right to cheer for whichever teams we want. Even the Yankees.
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
The Amish or Germans in TX aren't clogging the welfare rolls or overburdening public services through illegal immigration, and the Irish achieved their position in our society through assimilating into, and all the while enhancing, it, not stubbornly standing apart from it while selfishly taking from it. Like it or not, it's a fact that in California - as in TX and elsewhere - there are many illegal immigrants of all nationalities who are tooling this state for all it's worth, and who make a daily mockery of the hard work their fellow Californians do to support themselves and their families without resorting to the dole or, worse, rub salt into the wound by turning their backs on those whose largess they self-righteously claim for their own.
It's too bad it took a soccer game to bring this division to the fore, but it'd be far worse to ignore it and hope, foolishly, that if we can't "all just get along," then if we don't talk openly about these things maybe they will all just go away.
One small point about welfare: maybe the Amish aren't clogging welfare rolls, but from 1970-2000 the majority of people on welfare--even now--are of European ancestry, in part because they constitute the largest percentage of the total population of the United States. As Ung has noted, in some states, such as Kentucky, Vermont, Wyoming, Washington State, etc., the majority or plurality of welfare dependants and post-welfare roll members are of English, Irish, German, etc. ancestry.
Irish CATHOLIC assimilation varied by region; in some places, such as the Northeast, where discrimination against the Irish was strong, they did NOT assimilate so easily and the resulting segregation and parallel institutions are evidence of this. In other regions such as the south and southwest, where the Irish constituted a smaller portion of the total population, there was less official prejudice and more opportunity for assimilation. (Books by Ignatiev, Jacobson, Roediger, and others are good on these issues.) It's telling that while we have had several presidents of Irish Protestant ancestry (Jackson, etc.), the first and only Irish CATHOLIC president met with considerable resistance, especially in the South, and was not elected until 1960. We still have not had another Irish Catholic (or a Roman Catholic of any ancestry) president, though Catholics, at 60+ million, are the largest Christian denomination in this country and people of Irish descent constitute the second largest group of European descent in this nation (plus many African-Americans also have some Irish ancestry, so the numbers could be even higher).
Widescale German assimilation occurred primarily around the time of World War I, during which the U.S. government attempted to monitor and in some cases supress German-language newspapers and cultural organizations, especially in the Midwest. (German Americans, of course, have been in the U.S. since the time of the American Revolution, but the largest numbers arrived after the failed Germany Revolution of 1848, and then again after the Civil War. Many Germans fought on the Union side, for ideological, political and religious reasons.) To take another group (some of whom WERE German), open discrimination against Jewish Americans outside the South continued well into the early post-World War II period, despite attempts by many Jewish immigrants to assimilate...so this country does have a spotty history that shouldn't be papered over.
I live in New Jersey, which has very large populations of native-born Portuguese, Poles, Italians, Russians, Egyptians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and people from through the Caribbean (especially the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Haiti, and Trinidad), and Latin America (especially Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, etc.). If people born in any of these countries, or their children or grandchildren, feel proud by rooting for World Cup teams other than the U.S., I say more power to them. If African-Americans, millions of whom are descended (as are people throughout Latin America and the Caribbean) from slaves brought from Senegal and Nigeria, want to cheer for those teams, more power to them. The U.S. team is made up of people of various ancestries, including several recent immigrants (such as Carlos Llamosa), and American citizens who grew up in other countries (like Earnie Stewart), a beautiful reflection of the vibrant diversity of this country.
1/2 of Mexico became part of the U.S.A. after the Mexican-American War of 1847-48, so it should not be at all surprising that some Mexicans still hold claim to this land and what it represents. I mean, bloody, insane wars for far less long lost land continue all over the world; Aztlán is a mythical, ancestral construct and not a physical, real-world battleground, and I'll take that over the mad real bloodletting any day.
Do tell about Brazil, which is the only American nation to have been both a free-standing, non-imposed monarchy and a republic. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
BTW, today is Juneteenth and World Sauntering Day!
[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
The Amish or Germans in TX aren't clogging the welfare rolls or overburdening public services through illegal immigration, and the Irish achieved their position in our society through assimilating into, and all the while enhancing, it, not stubbornly standing apart from it while selfishly taking from it. Like it or not, it's a fact that in California - as in TX and elsewhere - there are many illegal immigrants of all nationalities who are tooling this state for all it's worth, and who make a daily mockery of the hard work their fellow Californians do to support themselves and their families without resorting to the dole or, worse, rub salt into the wound by turning their backs on those whose largess they self-righteously claim for their own.
It's too bad it took a soccer game to bring this division to the fore, but it'd be far worse to ignore it and hope, foolishly, that if we can't "all just get along," then if we don't talk openly about these things maybe they will all just go away.
One small point about welfare: maybe the Amish aren't clogging welfare rolls, but from 1970-2000 the majority of people on welfare--even now--are of European ancestry, in part because they constitute the largest percentage of the total population of the United States. As Ung has noted, in some states, such as Kentucky, Vermont, Wyoming, Washington State, etc., the majority or plurality of welfare dependants and post-welfare roll members are of English, Irish, German, etc. ancestry.
Irish CATHOLIC assimilation varied by region; in some places, such as the Northeast, where discrimination against the Irish was strong, they did NOT assimilate so easily and the resulting segregation and parallel institutions are evidence of this. In other regions such as the south and southwest, where the Irish constituted a smaller portion of the total population, there was less official prejudice and more opportunity for assimilation. (Books by Ignatiev, Jacobson, Roediger, and others are good on these issues.) It's telling that while we have had several presidents of Irish Protestant ancestry (Jackson, etc.), the first and only Irish CATHOLIC president met with considerable resistance, especially in the South, and was not elected until 1960. We still have not had another Irish Catholic (or a Roman Catholic of any ancestry) president, though Catholics, at 60+ million, are the largest Christian denomination in this country and people of Irish descent constitute the second largest group of European descent in this nation (plus many African-Americans also have some Irish ancestry, so the numbers could be even higher).
Widescale German assimilation occurred primarily around the time of World War I, during which the U.S. government attempted to monitor and in some cases supress German-language newspapers and cultural organizations, especially in the Midwest. (German Americans, of course, have been in the U.S. since the time of the American Revolution, but the largest numbers arrived after the failed Germany Revolution of 1848, and then again after the Civil War. Many Germans fought on the Union side, for ideological, political and religious reasons.) To take another group (some of whom WERE German), open discrimination against Jewish Americans outside the South continued well into the early post-World War II period, despite attempts by many Jewish immigrants to assimilate...so this country does have a spotty history that shouldn't be papered over.
I live in New Jersey, which has very large populations of native-born Portuguese, Poles, Italians, Russians, Egyptians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and people from through the Caribbean (especially the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Haiti, and Trinidad), and Latin America (especially Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, etc.). If people born in any of these countries, or their children or grandchildren, feel proud by rooting for World Cup teams other than the U.S., I say more power to them. If African-Americans, millions of whom are descended (as are people throughout Latin America and the Caribbean) from slaves brought from Senegal and Nigeria, want to cheer for those teams, more power to them. The U.S. team is made up of people of various ancestries, including several recent immigrants (such as Carlos Llamosa), and American citizens who grew up in other countries (like Earnie Stewart), a beautiful reflection of the vibrant diversity of this country.
1/2 of Mexico became part of the U.S.A. after the Mexican-American War of 1847-48, so it should not be at all surprising that some Mexicans still hold claim to this land and what it represents. I mean, bloody, insane wars for far less long lost land continue all over the world; Aztlán is a mythical, ancestral construct and not a physical, real-world battleground, and I'll take that over the mad real bloodletting any day.
Do tell about Brazil, which is the only American nation to have been both a free-standing, non-imposed monarchy and a republic. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
BTW, today is Juneteenth and World Sauntering Day!
[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
hey fanthomas.. I may not agree with some things you say... (like when you say Tino Martinez aint all that. oooh! I could murderlize ya! )
But I like the points you make vis-a-vis historical assimilation in america. as you state assimilation is often difficult even for those who wish to assimilate. often the cost of assimilation is the total sacrifice of national, ethnic, regional, religious identity. a price too steep for many.
It wasn't that long ago that we still had signs in businesses that said "N.I.N.A." (No Irish Need Apply) when they were hiring.(40 years ago??)
It wasn't that long ago when assimilated americans of japanese descent were rounded up into concentration camps after being relieved of their material possessions. (60 years ago)
It happens everyday that we see "mexicans" (called that even if they are from Panama, Guatemala etc) being called "dirty spics" and "welfare cheats"
It happens everyday that blacks are generalized and stereotyped as "lazy welfare cheats"
It happens everyday (esp in the south like Kentucky) that jews are called "Christ killers" (even though Jesus was a jew himself) some of my friends here are surprised that I would have jewish friends. In france and germany, the jews tried for hundreds of years to assimilate. many even gave up their religion and converted to christianity. But when the Dreyfus Affair struck France, all jews were seen as non-french. When the nazis came to power in Germany, the degree of assimilation did not matter. if you had jew blood, you were sent away to Dachau, Buchenwald etc
and of course.... on a regular basis, I am told "your english isn't so bad." (despite the fact that I have better diction and vocabulary than the natives speaker and I studied at Cambridge in England)
I am also told "I don't think of you as asian. to me you're almost white" (I loved that one)
or "you're the first asian I ever talked to/met/dated/befriended etc. I thought you guys were all so weird. But you're not."
the thing is... getting along in a new land is a two way street. the onus of cohabitation should not be strictly laid upon the feet of the immigres only.
But I like the points you make vis-a-vis historical assimilation in america. as you state assimilation is often difficult even for those who wish to assimilate. often the cost of assimilation is the total sacrifice of national, ethnic, regional, religious identity. a price too steep for many.
It wasn't that long ago that we still had signs in businesses that said "N.I.N.A." (No Irish Need Apply) when they were hiring.(40 years ago??)
It wasn't that long ago when assimilated americans of japanese descent were rounded up into concentration camps after being relieved of their material possessions. (60 years ago)
It happens everyday that we see "mexicans" (called that even if they are from Panama, Guatemala etc) being called "dirty spics" and "welfare cheats"
It happens everyday that blacks are generalized and stereotyped as "lazy welfare cheats"
It happens everyday (esp in the south like Kentucky) that jews are called "Christ killers" (even though Jesus was a jew himself) some of my friends here are surprised that I would have jewish friends. In france and germany, the jews tried for hundreds of years to assimilate. many even gave up their religion and converted to christianity. But when the Dreyfus Affair struck France, all jews were seen as non-french. When the nazis came to power in Germany, the degree of assimilation did not matter. if you had jew blood, you were sent away to Dachau, Buchenwald etc
and of course.... on a regular basis, I am told "your english isn't so bad." (despite the fact that I have better diction and vocabulary than the natives speaker and I studied at Cambridge in England)
I am also told "I don't think of you as asian. to me you're almost white" (I loved that one)
or "you're the first asian I ever talked to/met/dated/befriended etc. I thought you guys were all so weird. But you're not."
the thing is... getting along in a new land is a two way street. the onus of cohabitation should not be strictly laid upon the feet of the immigres only.
Fantomas, My mention of Brazil was only in reference to the lateness of the hour and the fact that I was thinking about staying up even later to watch them play Belgium that night. C'mon, even I've got a sense of humor!
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
Fantomas, My mention of Brazil was only in reference to the lateness of the hour and the fact that I was thinking about staying up even later to watch them play Belgium that night. C'mon, even I've got a sense of humor!
Okay, but I thought you were also going to tell us something interesting about Brazil, a country that fascinates me to no end! That's all I was saying--especially when you'd mentioned the Napoleanic code, etc.
Ung, I hear what *you're* saying too. I think we're probably on different ends of the political spectrum but I am always willing to listen to and read what others have to say, and I appreciate your perspective.
Fantomas, My mention of Brazil was only in reference to the lateness of the hour and the fact that I was thinking about staying up even later to watch them play Belgium that night. C'mon, even I've got a sense of humor!
Okay, but I thought you were also going to tell us something interesting about Brazil, a country that fascinates me to no end! That's all I was saying--especially when you'd mentioned the Napoleanic code, etc.
Ung, I hear what *you're* saying too. I think we're probably on different ends of the political spectrum but I am always willing to listen to and read what others have to say, and I appreciate your perspective.
Brazil, Brazil, ... let's see. Oh, OK: It might have belonged to Spain, who miscalculated greatly in submitting the question of ownership of newly-discovered lands to the Pope and then signing a treaty in 1494 which gave the Portuguese an even greater claim to the land. Because the Spanish and Portuguese reached Brazil at roughly the same time in 1499-1500, their competing claims were subject to the treaty and Spain got everything to the West of their treaty line. Brazil came out on the Portuguese side of the deal, though, and that's why they're not speaking Spanish down there today. Then there was Emperor Dom Pedro barking into AG Bell's newfangled telephone at the Philadelphia Exposition of 1876, but you already knew that.
Where's a poquito punctillo of law or some flexible demographic figure I can run with when I need one? Well then, how about this timely quote: "Jarmany calling, Jarmany calling!" Know whereof I speak?
Where's a poquito punctillo of law or some flexible demographic figure I can run with when I need one? Well then, how about this timely quote: "Jarmany calling, Jarmany calling!" Know whereof I speak?
Here's a column by Safire -- who I usually only like when he's writing about words .. and now ... "The Politics of Fútbol":
"You isolationist moms may call it soccer, a word derived from the second syllable in "association football," but we pre-emptive interventionists call the game that has the world transfixed this week fútbol.
Set aside the game itself; this is not the sports page. Consider instead the intelligence, geostrategic, cultural and diplomatic ramifications of fútbol, with its World Cup played, as always, halfway between U.S. presidential elections.
On intelligence: The game of fútbol first came to the attention of our satellite mapping analysts at the C.I.A. during the Kennedy administration. A playing field had been leveled — obviously not a baseball diamond — near some unexplained facilities in Cuba. That recreational facility could only be a soccer field, which strongly suggested the presence of Russian workers — a deduction that led to the Cuban missile crisis.
On strategic power: the Italian semiologist-novelist Umberto Eco wrote in 1978 about the impact of the World Cup on global crowd psychology. He noted that war and terrorism were destabilizing forces, but that the great countervailing power in the world was "in society's capacity for redistributing tension, immediately afterwards, on other poles, closer to the soul of the crowds." This stabilizing "other pole" was an international sports event like fútbol's World Cup.
On culture: The U.S. team, which had come in dead last in the last tournament in 1998, amazed 40 million viewers around the world by battling its way into the quarter-finals. The unthinkable thought was thunk: what if (gasp!) the U.S. team were to win the biggest global sports prize of all?
The International Herald Tribune headlined a column by its astute political-cultural observer, John Vinocur, with a startling "God Bless America — and Let U.S. Lose."
"God save us from the United States winning the World Cup," he wrote, "not so much because it would bring on waves of anti-Americanism . . . but because the Americans don't play pretty soccer. Things are tough enough for the Beautiful Game."
Vinocur noted in sadness that "winning ugly is on the rise all over the sport . . . the gorgeous, swooping attacks of a Brazil, once virtually a national obligation, are on the decline" as against "the willfulness and professionalism that have made Germany recurring world champions however consistently short on beauty."
The columnist deplored the replacement of the past glories of brilliance and elegance with the secondary virtues of strength and robustness, "relentlessness snuffing out what's left of filigree." (On Friday, the robust Germans knocked the robust Americans out of the tournament on a disputable call and tomorrow will play the surprising South Koreans; the winner of that, on Hyperbowl Sunday, will play the title-rich Brazilians or the title-hungry Turks.)
On diplomacy: U.S. foreign-policy makers, though patriots all, hoped fervently from the start that the U.S. team would make a respectable showing but not win. This lust to lose has nothing to do with Vinocur's sensitivity to the quality of the sport; on the contrary, it is based strictly on our national interest.
If the invigorated U.S. team had come out of nowhere to defeat the best of all the nations of the world — and not in our football, but in their fútbol — such a triumph, in this year, would have been a psychological bummer for the rest of the world and thus a diplomatic disaster for us.
Here we are, the locomotive of the world economy, the unipolar bear, a hyperbolic hyperpower bestriding the earth like a Colossus — do we have to win every hand, rake in every pot, block every competitor's goal? Let some other nation's screaming populace get a kick out of the kicking game. Because we lost honorably, doing better than expected, the U.S. won by losing.
But nice guys finish last only once. We don't play to lose well; that would be the height of condescension. The purpose of the World Cup may be to redistribute global tension, but the object of each team is to win. In 2006, even our multilateralists will root for our players' victory, whether their play is elegant or robust.
In the meantime — go Turks!
"You isolationist moms may call it soccer, a word derived from the second syllable in "association football," but we pre-emptive interventionists call the game that has the world transfixed this week fútbol.
Set aside the game itself; this is not the sports page. Consider instead the intelligence, geostrategic, cultural and diplomatic ramifications of fútbol, with its World Cup played, as always, halfway between U.S. presidential elections.
On intelligence: The game of fútbol first came to the attention of our satellite mapping analysts at the C.I.A. during the Kennedy administration. A playing field had been leveled — obviously not a baseball diamond — near some unexplained facilities in Cuba. That recreational facility could only be a soccer field, which strongly suggested the presence of Russian workers — a deduction that led to the Cuban missile crisis.
On strategic power: the Italian semiologist-novelist Umberto Eco wrote in 1978 about the impact of the World Cup on global crowd psychology. He noted that war and terrorism were destabilizing forces, but that the great countervailing power in the world was "in society's capacity for redistributing tension, immediately afterwards, on other poles, closer to the soul of the crowds." This stabilizing "other pole" was an international sports event like fútbol's World Cup.
On culture: The U.S. team, which had come in dead last in the last tournament in 1998, amazed 40 million viewers around the world by battling its way into the quarter-finals. The unthinkable thought was thunk: what if (gasp!) the U.S. team were to win the biggest global sports prize of all?
The International Herald Tribune headlined a column by its astute political-cultural observer, John Vinocur, with a startling "God Bless America — and Let U.S. Lose."
"God save us from the United States winning the World Cup," he wrote, "not so much because it would bring on waves of anti-Americanism . . . but because the Americans don't play pretty soccer. Things are tough enough for the Beautiful Game."
Vinocur noted in sadness that "winning ugly is on the rise all over the sport . . . the gorgeous, swooping attacks of a Brazil, once virtually a national obligation, are on the decline" as against "the willfulness and professionalism that have made Germany recurring world champions however consistently short on beauty."
The columnist deplored the replacement of the past glories of brilliance and elegance with the secondary virtues of strength and robustness, "relentlessness snuffing out what's left of filigree." (On Friday, the robust Germans knocked the robust Americans out of the tournament on a disputable call and tomorrow will play the surprising South Koreans; the winner of that, on Hyperbowl Sunday, will play the title-rich Brazilians or the title-hungry Turks.)
On diplomacy: U.S. foreign-policy makers, though patriots all, hoped fervently from the start that the U.S. team would make a respectable showing but not win. This lust to lose has nothing to do with Vinocur's sensitivity to the quality of the sport; on the contrary, it is based strictly on our national interest.
If the invigorated U.S. team had come out of nowhere to defeat the best of all the nations of the world — and not in our football, but in their fútbol — such a triumph, in this year, would have been a psychological bummer for the rest of the world and thus a diplomatic disaster for us.
Here we are, the locomotive of the world economy, the unipolar bear, a hyperbolic hyperpower bestriding the earth like a Colossus — do we have to win every hand, rake in every pot, block every competitor's goal? Let some other nation's screaming populace get a kick out of the kicking game. Because we lost honorably, doing better than expected, the U.S. won by losing.
But nice guys finish last only once. We don't play to lose well; that would be the height of condescension. The purpose of the World Cup may be to redistribute global tension, but the object of each team is to win. In 2006, even our multilateralists will root for our players' victory, whether their play is elegant or robust.
In the meantime — go Turks!
FIFA is an acronym for the French "Federation Internationale de Football Asscociation" according to their history page.
Seems like a corrupt bit of 'Franglais' that has been maintained out of tradition. I don't know where Safire got "Association Football" from, so I winced when I read the term this morning.
Wish he would also shed some more light on how anyone got "soccer" out of the "soc" in association.
I too enjoy his explanations of the derivations of words (I rarely read his editorial column) but I think this one needs a bit more development.
[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Seems like a corrupt bit of 'Franglais' that has been maintained out of tradition. I don't know where Safire got "Association Football" from, so I winced when I read the term this morning.
Wish he would also shed some more light on how anyone got "soccer" out of the "soc" in association.
I too enjoy his explanations of the derivations of words (I rarely read his editorial column) but I think this one needs a bit more development.
[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Soccer comes from a derivation of Association Football, which is what the sport was called in England in the 1800s. British students often added "-er" to abbreviate terms (ie rugby -->rugger), and ASSOCiation Football, or Assoc. Football, became assoccer or just soccer.
I had to write a paper on this one summer when I was a camper and lost a game against one of the counselors. So no, I don't remember exactly where I got it but I remember it and can now tell the story to kids at camp--or people on Outsports, too, I guess!
I had to write a paper on this one summer when I was a camper and lost a game against one of the counselors. So no, I don't remember exactly where I got it but I remember it and can now tell the story to kids at camp--or people on Outsports, too, I guess!
[quote]Originally posted by Chip:
...and can now tell the story to kids at camp--or people on Outsports, too, I guess!
Or to William Safire! Thanks Chip.
...and can now tell the story to kids at camp--or people on Outsports, too, I guess!
Or to William Safire! Thanks Chip.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.