Do you support the Minutemen? Well don't

[Teelynn]

This is such an enormously long thread, I am going to confess in advance that I haven’t read all of it. So if what I say is redundant, I ask your forgiveness.

I suspect those who say the San Diego group is a rogue group are probably right. I can’t picture Sean Hannity mixing with an anti-Catholic group and speaking approvingly of them, which is something he does with the Minutemen.

It seems to me the real problem is that the government does not do what it is supposed to do regarding the border, thus leaving the field open for organizations that try to fill in, and sometimes do it badly. If all of the cops in Chicago disappeared, militias would spring up overnight; some of which would be good and some of which would be horrible. That’s part of the reason we have governments. When the government fails the people and the people know it, all kinds of things can happen. That’s what we are experiencing. It is simply insane to say that people ought not to oppose chaos. People have a natural instinct to oppose it, particularly when that chaos is directly contrary to the laws which the peoples’ representatives, reflecting the peoples’ will, have passed. It’s also insane to say that a nation ought not to have the right to define its citizens and invitees. No nation can possibly protect its people or its economy without doing that. The real question is whether this nation does so or is likely to do so in a manner that really protects its legal residents, yet allows for it to be as generous to others as possible. For some nations, this might include excluding immigrants altogether, which Mexico pretty much does to Central Americans, perhaps to avoid simply increasing the poverty. For the U.S., clearly, there is geographical and economic room for greater numbers. As far as anyone knows, that is because U.S. institutions provide an environment in which great numbers can prosper. Yet, the government leaves immigration issues to militias. So what is the answer?

I don’t think the most recent legislative attempts were good answers, and I think most Americans (including lots of Hispanic Americans) oppose them. These represent further governmental failures, and are cynical attempts to make something bad look good. I personally favor Hispanics over virtually all other likely newcomers for a number of reasons. But there needs to be a way to do this for real; not by some bogus legislative invitation to further, and likely worse, chaos. Chaos, again, invites militia activity.

So, the question is, how can the government become the regulator of immigration that it should be, when it manifestly is willing to leave the whole thing up to the “militias”, in reality, in the future as it has in the past? This is an extremely serious failure. That question is like many faced by Americans. Legislators are corrupted, not just on the immigration issue, but on many others; abortion, healthcare, corporate welfare, by the system that allows them to sell their votes to parties in interest. Yes, Mexico is horribly corrupt; perhaps irredeemably so. But we’re following that path, and people ought to realize that it’s so. Unfortunately, Americans are not organized in the right way to fight this. I am not one who favors “third parties”, generally. But when the failures of those who govern cause people to turn to self help, it’s probably time to either truly clean up one party or reject them both and simply accept it that it might be time for a third party. Possibly voting every last legislator out of office out of principle might be a good start.

Yep, this sure was long, but this was a great post. Hit the nail on the head. The problem here is that the federal government has failed to govern. The federal government is so self absorbed by their own power needs that they do nothing to solve real problems for the good of it’s citizens. When the feds fail to govern to such an extent that social, economic, and yes moral situations get out of control as we see happening now, you indeed will have a number of militias popping up trying to do the job that they refuse to do. It is happening all over the country. I see it happening in my area as we speak. Local governments also try their hand in it and do what they can do without stepping out of bounds with the feds. It is high time that we as a people step up to the plate and actually come out of our little dream state to inform ourselves thoroughly of current issues and get organized. Just how to do that is the question. Getting involved would help…so would voting every current legislator outie…send a message. I believe it might be at the point, however that sending a message just doesn’t cut it anymore.

 

[rlg94086]

I see where your confusion lies. You think Canadians, Peruvians, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, etcetera…prefer to be called Americans.

There is no confusion in any country in the world when the term American is used. Everyone knows the reference is in regards to the citizens of the United States. Otherwise, when someone says “I hate Americans,” or “Americans are arrogant,” then people of the other North, South and Central American countries would protest.

Ditto on America referring to the United States. If someone is going to South America, they usually say so, or they say “I am going to Brazil” (for example). I’ve never heard anyone in Europe or Asia refer to any other country than the United States as “America.”

I see where your confusion lies. You think people are saying you should not call the land mass, the continent, of America - America. That’s not the case at all.

What people are saying is that when you refer to being “American” you should realize that term applies to residents of the American continent and not exclusively to citizens of the United States? Does the continental land mass called “America” end at the US borders?

does that clear it up for you?

btw: how many continents are there?

 

[aspawloski4th]

I see where your confusion lies. You think people are saying you should not call the land mass, the continent, of America - America. That’s not the case at all.

What people are saying is that when you refer to being “American” you should realize that term applies to residents of the American continent and not exclusively to citizens of the United States? Does the continental land mass called “America” end at the US borders?

does that clear it up for you?

btw: how many continents are there?

I have a very simple idea that puts symantics asside. lets just do what we were tought in grade school, some of us as ealy as preschool. call our selves americans like we all were toughts a little kids, and call people from mexico , mexicans, people bolivia, bolivians, etc it is simple it has been commonly accepted by conservative and liberal alive for eons, long than I have been arround. lets quit the debate over symantics and get back to the subject of the illegal alien invasion before us!

 

[sprout]

I see where your confusion lies. You think Canadians, Peruvians, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, etcetera…prefer to be called Americans.

There is no confusion in any country in the world when the term American is used. Everyone knows the reference is in regards to the citizens of the United States. Otherwise, when someone says “I hate Americans,” or “Americans are arrogant,” then people of the other North, South and Central American countries would protest.

Ditto on America referring to the United States. If someone is going to South America, they usually say so, or they say “I am going to Brazil” (for example). I’ve never heard anyone in Europe or Asia refer to any other country than the United States as “America.”

No I don’t think people from these other Nations prefer to be called American and haven’t even alluded to as much. They usually prefer to be called by the name of the region they are from i.e. Canadians, Brazilians, Columbians, Mexicans and likewise.

Perhaps you didn’t read the earlier post where I described the situation. I realize this topic has become quite long and perhaps that’s the cause of all this misunderstanding.
Earlier I quoted wikipedia:

While many in the United States of America generally refer to the country as America and themselves as Americans,[29] many people elsewhere in the Americas resent what they perceive as appropriation of the term in this context and, thus, this usage is frequently avoided.[30][31][32] In Canada, their southern neighbour is seldom referred to as “America” with “the United States”, “the U.S.”, or (informally) “the States” used instead.[31] English dictionaries and compendiums differ regarding usage and rendition.[4][5]

It’s not only the appropriation of the term, but it’s use as “exclusionary” (i.e. they don’t belong - they’re not Americans, get out of America) when referring to the topic of undocumented immigration just adds salt to the wound and becomes all the more offensive.

Most people from the South American countries refer to us as estadounidense now there’s an idea, the Latin language sure does have a way of saying things succinctly.

In Spanish, América is the name of a region considered a single continent composed of the subcontinents of Sudamérica and Norteamérica, the land bridge of Centroamérica, and the islands of the Antillas. Americano/a in Spanish refers to a person from América in a similar way that europeo or europea refers to a person from Europe. The terms sudamericano/a, centroamericano/a, antillano/a and norteamericano/a can be used to more specifically refer to the location where a person may live.

Citizens of the United States of America are normally referred to by the term estadounidense instead of americano or americana. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas:

I also have the benefit of living in a border town; having several relatives by marriage from Latin American countries; attended a college where there were a majority of foreign students and I am generally the kind of person who is interested in other cultures so that I’ve had many opportunities to discuss such things with foreigners. Perhaps if I hadn’t I might also be confused about the use of the term.

 

[Moneo]

I see where your confusion lies. You think Canadians, Peruvians, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, etcetera…prefer to be called Americans.

They may or may not, but that isn’t really the issue at hand. In any case, their resistance to being referred to as Americans, when it happens, usually stems from both a desire to avoid confusion and to distance themselves from the international policies of the U.S. government, not because they do not believe themselves to be Americans. Canadians are particularly notable in adopting this posture when overseas.

There is no confusion in any country in the world when the term American is used. Everyone knows the reference is in regards to the citizens of the United States. Otherwise, when someone says “I hate Americans,” or “Americans are arrogant,” then people of the other North, South and Central American countries would protest.

There usually isn’t, I agree, but the two points you bring up are, in my opinion, a sad commentary in and of themselves.

Ditto on America referring to the United States. If someone is going to South America, they usually say so, or they say “I am going to Brazil” (for example). I’ve never heard anyone in Europe or Asia refer to any other country than the United States as "America."

Here I don’t agree. I hear people in Europe refer to America every day and they say the United States when they mean the U.S., Canada when they mean Canada, Mexico when they mean Mexico, etc.

The difference in our experiences here may be the result of a difference in the way a European relates to you and me. I am a permanent resident here and my country of origin is not the sum total of the way I am perceived. When you come, they know you are here on holiday and you are perceived in a more limited fashion. All I mean to say here is that when people speak with you, the discourse gets adapted because you are a visitor.

 

[jmj603]

now that’s about the most dishonest case of selective out of context quoting I’ve yet to see.

What does “especially” mean?

It is so ethnocentric to refer to the US as America, especially when you are discussing immigration which involves other “Americans”, our neighbors to the south.

The original quote did not refer exclusively to immigration but to Church-State relations:

Some of you seem to want a theocracy where the CCC governs America. We are obligated to obey the laws of our nation.

BTW, what “ethnicity” are you talking about, exactly?

Yessir, Catholics sure looks like winners on this thread. We stand for…beating people up because of their nationality, I guess. Frankly, we’re starting to make the Minutemen look like they have a point.

Have you ever heard an American bishop get on CNN and slam anti-immigration activists for using the term “America” when referring to Church-state relations on immigration?

 

[Moneo]

Most people from the South American countries refer to us as estadounidense now there’s an idea, the Latin language sure does have a way of saying things succinctly.

This is also a good point and something that I have often pointed out to Spanish-speaking friends when trying to explain to them that the almost exclusive appropriation of the noun American by people from the U.S. shouldn’t always be assumed to be the result of bad will or political chauvinism: we simply don’t have a single, easy-to-say noun for our national point of origin. We can do it with many of our native cities (Bostonian, Philadelphian, New Yorker, Chicagoan etc.) and with many of our home states (Iowan, Mississippian, Floridian, Texan etc.) but there does not exist a single noun equivalent to “estadounidense” in English.

eek: What!? You’ve argued the other side of the fence too? Sure have, in order to combat negative stereotypes and broad generalizations about people from the U.S.)

As I said earlier, I normally respond in English by saying “I’m from the United States”. It’s not difficult to do, it’s clear and I’ve found it greases the gears of social interaction quite wonderfully.

 

[Dale_M]

Ilets quit the debate over symantics and get back to the subject of the illegal alien invasion before us!

I agree that the semantic quibble over the use of the term “American” is off-topic, but I believe this thread was originally about protest by the Minutemen at a Catholic Church.

Here is an update on the protests, which appear to be ongoing:

Sheriff’s Department officials said Wednesday that they are investigating a confrontation that took place during a protest Saturday between an anti-illegal immigration protester and an unidentified man in front of St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Fallbrook.

For more than a month, anti-illegal immigration activists have organized Saturday protests against the church because it runs a day-labor site on its property. Activists say most of the workers are in the country illegally.

During Saturday’s protest, Kiani Garcia, a member of the San Diego Minutemen, one of the groups protesting against the church, sprayed Mace on a man who approached him and grabbed his camera. The man took Garcia’s video camera and threw it against the sidewalk.

nctimes.com/articles/2007/07/19/news/inland/3_03_197_18_07.txt

The article goes on to say that "mmigrant rights activists released photo stills of a video they say shows Garcia sprayed the man" before he grabbed the camera.

 

[Ender]

Sheriff’s Department officials said Wednesday that they are investigating a confrontation that took place during a protest Saturday between an anti-illegal immigration protester and an unidentified man in front of St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Fallbrook.

This is what it has come to: the federal government won’t address the problem so individuals and organizations are taking the initiative. That this has led to confrontations between those who want to end illegal immigration and those who don’t was inevitable. I am neither surprised nor disappointed by that development.

Ender

 

[sprout]

The original quote did not refer exclusively to immigration but to Church-State relations:

Actually in following the discussion I was responding *as well *to an earlier post AdvanceAlways made and *in particular *to AA’s use of term since I was, in fact, responding to AA:

…We have the right to defend our nation against invaders seeking to take the jobs of countless Americans. The Church says we need to rid the world of poverty. The Minutemen are doing nothing but trying to secure our border so poor Americans have a shot at making a living. forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2459744&postcount=10

so that later when AA said:

What part about laws don’t some of you understand?! Some of you seem to want a theocracy where the CCC governs America.

I felt it was appropriate to respond with some information as to how the “exclusive” misuse of the term American is viewed by the “rest of the world”.

especially means:

1 : SPECIALLY 1
2 a : in particular : PARTICULARLY
b : for a particular purpose
3 – used as an intensive
m-w.com/dictionary/especially

I could just have easily said "It is so ethnocentric to refer to the US as America, particularly when you are discussing immigration which involves other “Americans”, our neighbors to the south.

I hope this makes the “context” clearer for you.

 

[rlg94086]

Here I don’t agree. I hear people in Europe refer to America every day and they say the United States when they mean the U.S., Canada when they mean Canada, Mexico when they mean Mexico, etc.

The difference in our experiences here may be the result of a difference in the way a European relates to you and me. I am a permanent resident here and my country of origin is not the sum total of the way I am perceived. When you come, they know you are here on holiday and you are perceived in a more limited fashion. All I mean to say here is that when people speak with you, the discourse gets adapted because you are a visitor.

Really?

I said:

I’ve never heard anyone in Europe or Asia refer to any other country than the United States as "America."

And, you say you don’t agree? Pray tell, what countries have your European friends referred to as “America?” I didn’t say it is the only way they refer to the United States. Of course, they say United States or US, but America is sometimes used…but, as I said…never in reference to another country.

Also, you shouldn’t assume my purposes in Europe. I have never been on holiday in Europe. I lived and worked in the UK for 6 months, and I currently work for a Dutch company and often work on-site at our headquarters and our other manufacturing site in Austria. You have no idea how my colleagues adapt their speech for me.

{Edit add…In my experience in Europe and Asia, “Americans” is almost always used, since it is the least awkward way to refer to "the citizens of the United States. I’m guessing this has been your experience as well. If not, please let me know what my colleagues use to refer to my fellow Americans. }

 

[estesbob]

I see where your confusion lies. You think Canadians, Peruvians, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, etcetera…prefer to be called Americans.

There is no confusion in any country in the world when the term American is used. Everyone knows the reference is in regards to the citizens of the United States. Otherwise, when someone says “I hate Americans,” or “Americans are arrogant,” then people of the other North, South and Central American countries would protest.

Ditto on America referring to the United States. If someone is going to South America, they usually say so, or they say “I am going to Brazil” (for example). I’ve never heard anyone in Europe or Asia refer to any other country than the United States as “America.”

Exactly. Citizens of the United States are referred to as Ameicans throughout the world-always have been always will be.When we see Islamic radicals holding up signs saying "death to Amercia"does anyone in their right mind beleive that they are refering to Canadians and Mexicans? To deny we are called Ameicans is one of those pseudo intellectul things proffered by those who think it makes them look knowledgeable but in reality makes them look foolish.

 

[Moneo]

Pray tell, what countries have your European friends referred to as “America?” I didn’t say it is the only way they refer to the United States. Of course, they say United States or US, but America is sometimes used…but, as I said…never in reference to another country.

Really? :ehh:

Well, let’s see … about a week and a half ago I met a Portuguese woman who asked me where I was originally from. When I told her I was born in the United States, she responded by telling me that she has a sister “that lives in America”. When I asked her where (expecting as you probably would that she was going to name some city in the U.S.), her reply was “in Sao Paulo.” Last time I checked, that was in Brazil …

My Irish buddy constantly tells people that his father has brothers “living in America.” One of them lives in Vancouver, and the other in Toronto. I don’t remember him mentioning one that lives in the U.S., and I believe his father only has three. The third lives in Belfast as far as I know.

And my Spanish friends routinely say that they are going to, or have been to, America on holiday or business. They say it whether they are going to Argentina, Chile, the U.S. or wherever. Of course, they also name the specific countries. Not everyone of course, but a very high percentage of them do. This tendency to think of America in broader terms, which was explained above as being the result of having the Spanish word *estadounidense *is one of the reasons I became aware of the issue and started using “American” more carefully.

So, I guess we’ll just have to let it go there. Two different people, two different sets of experiences.

Also, you shouldn’t assume my purposes in Europe. I have never been on holiday in Europe. I lived and worked in the UK for 6 months, and I currently work for a Dutch company and often work on-site at our headquarters and our other manufacturing site in Austria. You have no idea how my colleagues adapt their speech for me.

I didn’t assume anything about you. That is, in fact, why I said that the difference in our experiences here

may be the result of a difference in the way a European relates to you and me.

Since I didn’t in fact know, I employed the modal auxiliary verb may to indicate possibility and then extrapolated a possible explanation from there.

God bless.

 

[Moneo]

To deny we are called Ameicans is one of those pseudo intellectul things proffered by those who think it makes them look knowledgeable but in reality makes them look foolish.

Oh-h-hhh, ouch! Golly, that smarts.

Nobody at any point denied that you are called Americans, nor has anyone said that it’s wrong to do so. The sub-discussion generated by the conversation on this thread was about those who use the noun, or think that it should only be used, exclusively to refer to people from the U.S. Carefully reading the posts will generally guarantee that nobody ends up looking foolish.

 

[sprout]

I think we’d all agree that the Olympics is an international organization.

Do you know that the 5 rings in the Olympic symbol represent the 5 continents of the world? Africa, America, Asia, Australia and Europe.

“The Olympic flag …] has a white background, with five interlaced rings in the centre : blue, yellow, black, green and red …] This design is symbolic ; it represents** the five continents of the world**, united by Olympism, while the six colours are those that appear on all the national flags of the world at the present time.” (1931) Textes choisis II, p.470.

notice they say 5 continents. They do not distinguish between North, Central, and South America.

Now if this is the view of the founders of the Olympics, then it’s gotta be a fairly common view - outside the US that is!

here’s what wikipedia says:

From the mid-19th century, United States atlases more commonly treated North and South America as separate continents, while atlases published in Europe usually considered them one continent. However it was still not uncommon for United States atlases to treat them as one continent up till World War II.[48] The Olympic flag, devised in 1913, has five rings representing the five inhabited, participating continents, with America being treated as one continent and Antarctica not included.[18]

From the 1950s, most United States geographers divided America in two[48] — consistent with modern understanding of geology and plate tectonics. With the addition of Antarctica, this made the seven-continent model. However, this division of America never appealed to Latin America, which saw itself spanning an America that was a single landmass, and there the conception of six continents remains, as it does in scattered other countries. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

is it really all that difficult to understand that when we refer to only the US and it’s citizens as Americans WHILE EXCLUDING the other inhabitants of the Americas that this could be found offensive to these other inhabitants?

 

[rlg94086]

So, I guess we’ll just have to let it go there. Two different people, two different sets of experiences.

 

[estesbob]

I think we’d all agree that the Olympics is an international organization.

Do you know that the 5 rings in the Olympic symbol represent the 5 continents of the world? Africa, America, Asia, Australia and Europe.

WOW!!! Really!!! 5 continents.!!! And silly me I thought there were 7!!! You learn so on CAF

 

[Philothea53]

Do you know that the 5 rings in the Olympic symbol represent the 5 continents of the world? Africa, America, Asia, Australia and Europe.

Acually, it is a much more inclusive representation than that. At least one of the five colors of the rings and the wihite background can be found on the flag of every nation in the world.

 

[Ender]

I saw a recent news article about work on the border fence being resumed so as much as I was incensed about the proposed amnesty bill being resurrected in congress, I think the massive outcry by similarly outraged voters might have had a positive affect. We just need to keep the pressure on - and we can be thankful that organizations like the Minutemen keep the issue visible.

Ender

 

[jmj603]

I hope this makes the “context” clearer for you.

It does. The subsequent “especially” or “particularly” does not negate or in any way contradict or lessen the meaning of your statement:

It is so ethnocentric to refer to the US as America

Your objection to the selection of the quote is disingenuous and specious, and likewise is your characterization of your own opinion.

Clearly, it is your stated, unretracted and reiterated opinion that it is “ethnocentric” to refer to the United States of America as “America” at all. This was your voluntary addition to the thread, a completely off-topic and unsupportable attack not only on the poster but on all Americans. In support of the use of the term “America”, we have:

• The USA is the only sovereign state in the world to have the word “America” in its name. It is one of three states in the Americas to have the words “United States of” in its name.
• The USA is the oldest surviving sovereign state in the Americas (not counting its constituent States).
• It is the common usage of the principal nation served by this forum, and of the people of this forum.
• Our Lady Herself has desired to associate the name America in a particular way with the USA.

In opposition, you have quoted Wikipedia. And, FWIW, Wikipedia’s article on America actually says the following:

America usually means either:
* The Americas, the lands and regions of the Western hemisphere
* The United States of America, a country in the Americas

I’m still waiting, BTW, to know which “ethnicity” we are being “centric” over.