Birds in Hell wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:Birds in Hell wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:Trump's border talk is nothing but thinly veiled racism. He is intentionally inciting hatred toward POC, particularly Hispanics. The narrative is palpable, and it isn't new.
Predictably, I don't buy it.
Are all actions by a country to exert control over its borders necessarily racist? The whole point of a border is to exclude, to discriminate.
He is publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. He referred to immigrants as rapists. He used the phrase "bad hombres." How much more transparently awful can he be? That is building a false and hateful narrative if I've ever seen it.
With respect to the first, I don't necessarily find anything objectionable about that - as I said when it was discussed earlier, I might do depending on the amount of detail provided (I'd hate to see people acting as vigilantes, etc.)
With respect to the second two, I don't think you can necessarily equate comments made during the campaign to policy decisions. I've said before I think Trump is vulgar, crass and personally unpleasant, those are two clear examples of just that.
Just as its possible to support strong immigration and border policies and not bear any ill-will towards immigrants, it's possible to find some of Trump's policies and positions appealing without finding anything to like in his personality or public statements.
There is a layer of understanding that seems to be lacking from your interpretation of all this, but that absense is very understandable.
The majority of American media glosses over this, and the ones that do address it tend to take a very smarmy approach, but you cannot understand what is happening here without understanding the popularity and rise of Steve Bannon. Without that...without real exposure to the dog whistle phrases, the lexicon of the movement, and the opportunity to sit among Breitbart-fed American citizens who feel that you are "safe" to open up to...you cannot understand any of this.
I shit on the Midwest a lot. I have a solid reason: it really sucks. I lived there for over 30 years. But I was raised in a community where some of the oldest people still spoke German as a first language. People who fought in WW2 and couldn't write home, ever, because their families never learned functional English. German letters home would be a problem. And I spent my summers going between Texas and Louisiana, where my dad's family was from. Scots, whose ancestors came over early and became wealthy slaveowners. Whose descendants openly wish that was still the way of things.
It's not a meme to say that these people believe that Israel "belongs" to the US right now, or that Hillary Clinton practices dark magic. It's not a joke. It's not just a way that they demonize their opponents. They believe it in the same way you believe that the earth is not the only body in space. It's that true.
These are people who, over time, have been cultivated into only accepting information from a specific source. They saw Rush Limbaugh's TV show in the 90's. Then they watched Fox. Then Fox pointed them towards Breitbart. And the confirmation bias exploded.
There are key phrases, or terminological absences, that these people identify on a variety of topics, and which act as silent communiques. They are now coming from the White House, and they all reek of Bannon.
The value of these things is that the group "gets" it, but the broader population either doesnt or can't grab anything solid. Between my wife and myself, we were awash with excited texts/emails/social media trash about the use of the word "innocents" instead of "Jewish people" in today's statement before the media even had a chance to latch on...because Bannon's people know that language. It's one of many ways that Trump's words and policies have melded to match Breitbart culture. And no small surprise, since we are increasingly hearing leaks from the White House claiming that Bannon and crew have dominated the chosing and writing of executive orders....and even cowrote (or wrote) the inaugural address (which was purely a restating of the worldview they have sold for years).
There is no interpretation of the events this last week that avoids the size, tenacity, or common language of that crowd, and is also accurate. None. The ability to be racist, nationalist, sexist, and speak of related goals without exposure is a primary appeal of this set. Donald Trump could make insane claims about crowd sizes, because the Breitbart crew BELIEVE IT. That's why I shared that research...because it demonstrated the scope of a dominating bias that is real and is being beaconed to, every day.
You can argue that strong borders are good, and I'll listen. I happen to think that much stronger borders mixed with less stringent immigration policies would be a good thing. But it is unavoidably fallacitic to propose that racial constructs are not right at the core of why these things are being pushed, and how they are being communicated to the base. Whether you agree with some of the policies or not, rationales and goals are being communicated here that your words do not imply recognition of.
This is also why the women's march was so important, and why more and more visible, unfiltered, social and media response is important. A worldview has claimed power here that is truly a minority, but has been tightly contained for so long...been so convinced of its dominance and prevalence...that it can't even interpret pictures of crowd sizes.
That it will believe an old woman who lives in the public eye is part of a pedophile rape ring operating out of a pizza parlor.
For real.
If you speculate on who Trump really is, but ignore his perfection of the language of that crowd, then you've already missed the boat....because you are not understanding the reasons for his actions, and therefore are not understanding what their natural conclusions may end up being.
