LeviF
-
Posts
9,931 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LeviF
-
-
The Metamorphosis was published in 1915.
I did not read your post.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
-
7 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
Whew. I'm so glad I live in Virginia even if only adopted by my community and state.. English and Irish "stock" (wtf, were your parents cows or sheep?) but unfortunately (per you) Catholic Irish (My dad always used Jameson's in his Irish coffee). F it. I'm American. My naturalized Asian, European, South American, Australian and Russian colleagues are also American. They're a huge credit and resource to the country. And they don't care about your stupid criteria.
They will when we deport them! -
2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
How are we to know when you’re being serious? Initially, your definition of an American was concrete and very specific. Then you softened it to include trump. Now you’re disavowing it completely. It’s more difficult to divine your true meaning than trump’s. Actually it’s pretty easy but you both deny it when asked directly.
10 hours ago, LeviF said:You can basically look at it two ways. First is that the foundational American stock (those who are genealogically American and those who have married and assimilated with genealogical Americans) is made up of the descendants of the English who founded the Virginia and Massachusetts Bay colonies, and the descendants of the slaves brought into the aforementioned Virginia colony. This is admittedly the more restrictive of the two. The second is the folkways model as outlined in Albion's Seed (those who, by stock or by assimilation, are part of the four cultures that migrated from the island of Great Britain).
Notably, neither *require* citizenship, as citizenship is an accident, rather than part of the essence, of a person. Also notably, both require you to admit that the American essentially exists outside of unintelligible allegiance to some sort of democratic ideology or as a widget in an economic zone. Another impossible challenge for you, to be sure.
This is what I said. Neither state that only those of English blood are American. Exactly the opposite, actually. -
10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I'm sure he's worried about that.
Or maybe she's a Daughter of the American Revolution.
I don't think so. There's plenty in the historical record regarding Catholics (Maryland) at a minimum.
Still: weird that you act like that would be a good thing, that only WASPs as we used to call them count as fully "American"
Maybe you can revive the Whig Party
Again, you and the actual doctor purposefully misrepresent and ignore the things I actually write. This isn't a closing argument, counselor. Frankly it's not even very serious but at the least you could engage with what I actually write rather than the mean scary xenophobic boogeyman you've set up in your head.
-
8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
So here's that first Naturalization Law of 1790: Only "free white persons" who had lived in the U.S. for at least two years and demonstrated good character were eligible for citizenship.
Obviously most free white persons at that time in the colonies were of British/Northern Irish ancestry. But not all. So a lot of persons of German ancestry were eligible, as were a lot of Spanish-descended persons. These people were all considered "white" but there was certainly no ethnic commonality between English Anglicans, Spanish and other Catholics, and German Lutherans. So really all you've got is "white."
And there you have it. White nationalism.
Considering the (British) act that preceded it we can almost certainly deduce that "good character" meant Protestant as well.
-
12 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
And so what would that have to do with who is considered "American" in your sense of the word?
I'll cut to the chase: you seem to be saying that the only true "Americans" in an non-purely legalistic sense are the descendants of white people who would have been able to naturalize under the first Naturalization Law of 1790. In other words, the rest of us are all kind of American citizens by law, but we're not, you know, really Americans.
Your statement was that America was not founded as an ethno-nationalist state. The first, and several subsequent, Naturalization laws as well as the Constitution itself contradict this at least to some extent. We can argue to what degree that might be but your initial statement is categorically false.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Would you care to remind me of what the "history of the early laws of this country with respect to immigration" were?
Could it be that there was no law at all with respect to immigration?
The first time non-European aliens were made eligible for naturalization didn’t come until the 1830s. And it was some Indian tribe and came with some strings attached. -
6 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
Is trump a legitimate citizen given his Germanic roots? At best, he’s tangentially related to the founders. Is he an American National?
I can’t really speak to Trump’s genealogy, but ethnic Germans can be seen as cousins of sorts to the ethnic Americans in general. They assimilate just fine and have intermarried quite a lot with the old American stock.8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:I can see what you're getting at with respect to what we would call ethno-nationalist states. You mention Japan. OK, let's go with Japan. You suggest there is something ethnically/racially/culturally/linguistically "Japanese" that is understood by the Japanese themselves, such that even the descendants of a white man from England who immigrated to Japan in 1890 would never qualify. Let's assume that's true. On some meaning of the term "Japanese," I suspect that most ethnically Japanese people would agree, even if that English family was otherwise fully acculturated.
Where I must disagree is with America. This is the very idea of American exceptionalism. We are not an ethno-nationalist country. Indeed, probably the first non ethno-nationalist country in the world. There were empires composed of various conquered peoples, but those were understood to be agglomerations of different peoples/culture/ethnicities. That is simply not America. There is no "American-ness" akin to "Japanese-ness," no specific racial/cultural/ethnic identity to being American. You may argue that there is a linguistic (English) identity, but that's the one that changes most readily from generation to generation.
So the question is this: who, in your definition, has the necessary "American national identity?" Only descendants of those English speaking white men in the colonies at the time of the revolution? Descendants of English speaking black slaves at that time? Descendants of English speaking black slaves at the time of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments? Descendants of Scottish and German 19th century immigrants like Trump? Descendants of Italians or Poles or Irish who immigrated in the early 1900s? Native Americans who do not live on a reservation? White Americans descended from colonists who have married Native Americans and who live in the sovereign Navajo Nation with their spouses?
You posit a category that is hard and fast, but it seems to be "I know a true American when I see one." Maybe you can tell me exactly what you're seeing?
Again, ignorance of the history of the early laws of this country with respect to immigration especially is no friend.
I’ve spoken to the heritage black Americans already in this very thread. If you can’t be bothered to read just say so and have done with it.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Because they are U.S. citizens by law.
You may be a white man, descended from German stock, and living under the authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, just as you may be an American Indian man, of Navajo ancestry, living under the authority of the Navajo nation. Both Americans. Period.
In disputes between a state government and the federal government or between two states, we often refer to these as "sister sovereign" matters.
Again, citizenship is a legal matter we apply to people. Nationality is not, at least not in the historic use of the term.
People that claim to be part of a sovereign nation within the United States should lay no claim to the term “native” except as applies to whatever failed state their parentage hailed.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
Yes and if I became a British citizen I’d be British just like any other naturalized immigrant trump ( drumpf) is of German ancestory. His genetics are not directly descendent from the founders. Is he an American? There are so many flaws in your thesis and inconsistencies it’s hard to know where to start. Your definition of American is arbitrary and not supported by American law or history
It’s supported by both. The ignorance is yours.
To you, nationality is an accidental fiction. Something that you can step into and out of. This is a fundamental philosophical difference that separates you from thousands of years of thinking on the matter. We can’t have a productive conversation about it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
Because they’re native Americans …the meaning is the rights of citizens. I could become a UK citizen thru marriage and renounce my US citiz n. Then I’d be entitled to the rights of a British citizen. Why is English heritage so important to you? Many Brit’s have Viking or Roman heritage from centuries ago. This is not a black and white question. It’s muddied by history and human sexual behavior.
No. They aren't. They are descended from the first settlers of this giant land mass but in most cases failed at statecraft. In the cases where they did not (say, the Aztecs), they were rightly and ruthlessly conquered. The "natives" of this country are those who are descended from the founders of this country (described above) and those that lived and assimilated among and with them in the 17th and 18th centuries.
If you became a Japanese citizen through marriage and became entitled to the rights of a Japanese citizen, renouncing your US citizenship and permanently relocating yourself to Osaka, would you then consider yourself Japanese?
-
6 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
As far as I’m concerned they can choose to be American or not, just like I can.
Then being "American" is pure accident, meaningless.
And as far as they go, many of them "choose" to not be American. So why should they be able to lay claim to the term "native American?"
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
Total bs. Fine thing that you are not nor never will be the arbiter of citizenship or nationality. Your philosophy reminds me of muggles vs pure bloods in Harry Potter. She was parodying people like you. Sad that you’re so insecure that you’re threatened by immigrants.
Which part is BS? Many of the so-called "indigenous" peoples maintain their sovereignty from the United States all the while attempting to reap the benefits of American citizenship, for all that's worth. Why would these people be Americans by any reasonable definition?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
Are native Americans, true Americans?
First, our respective understandings of the term "native Americans" is going to be wildly different. I'm going to assume that your definition is related to the descendants of the stone age peoples that crossed the land bridge that purportedly existed between what we now call Russia and Alaska.
Some are, and some are not. Which sounds like a non-answer but is consistent with what I stated upthread. Careful reading should tell you that "America," as I speak of it, is not simply a land mass.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Yes that’s why I want as many people as possible to live here and enjoy the same freedoms I do. 🇺🇸
Yeah, that was kind of my point.
41 minutes ago, LeviF said:Also notably, both require you to admit that the American essentially exists outside of unintelligible allegiance to some sort of democratic ideology or as a widget in an economic zone. Another impossible challenge for you, to be sure.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Coffeesforclosers said:
My rights are a gift from God. Given freely by Him, unmerited and unearned. This is the basis of our country.
No earthly circumstances can change that.
Somewhere along the line, some form of Secularism wormed its way into your brain, and made you feel good about something that is a lie.
Your ethnicity is a gift from God. Given freely by Him via providence through your parentage. Also unmerited, unearned. No earthly accident (such as where you happened to be born) can change that.
If you are indeed a Christian, you might do well to see whether “Enlightenment” thinking has wormed its way into your faith. Such as the idea that your blood brothers are of lesser import than the foreigner.
Myself, I have little skin in the religious game. Though I freely acknowledge that the founding of America was particularly Christian, and Protestant.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:
Levi is a blood and soil nationalist.
Everyone is a blood and soil nationalist about the places they actually care about.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Ok so what’s an American thenYou can basically look at it two ways. First is that the foundational American stock (those who are genealogically American and those who have married and assimilated with genealogical Americans) is made up of the descendants of the English who founded the Virginia and Massachusetts Bay colonies, and the descendants of the slaves brought into the aforementioned Virginia colony. This is admittedly the more restrictive of the two. The second is the folkways model as outlined in Albion's Seed (those who, by stock or by assimilation, are part of the four cultures that migrated from the island of Great Britain).
Notably, neither *require* citizenship, as citizenship is an accident, rather than part of the essence, of a person. Also notably, both require you to admit that the American essentially exists outside of unintelligible allegiance to some sort of democratic ideology or as a widget in an economic zone. Another impossible challenge for you, to be sure.
-
19 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
American: a citizen of America. Happy to help.Leftist not commit the fallacy of accident challenge: impossible.
-
1 minute ago, Starr-Bills said:
I mean it’s on the statue at the front door…
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”― Emma Lazarus
Ah, yes, famous section of immigration policy, there.
Ellis Island and its consequences have been a disaster for America and, consequently, the human race.
Emma Lazarus (interesting surname btw) was never elected to anything.
In the leftist state religion that ***** poem and the Civil Rights Act are the confessions.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Roundybout said:
Im sorry you have to put up with all those pesky brown folks. You’ll be ok, I promise.If you can't define "American" by some essential parameters then no, there is no such thing as an "American."
I don't write the rules, I just ruthlessly enforce them.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
If that’s what you get out of that quote, please seek an emergency room as you might be having a stroke
Evergreen
-
1
-
-
Democrats officially state it out loud: there is no such thing as an “American.”
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, boater said:
I just heard on the radio... "cost cutting" measures. They also axed Samantha Ponder.
Cost cutting. But they're paying out their contracts.
Unless he had a stipulation in his contract that he only flies private or something I don't see how this saves much.
Venezuelan gang takes over apartment buildings in Colorado.
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Every person in that video is prohibited federally (I assume) from possessing firearms.
And the ATF is knocking on the doors of people who registered suppressors three years ago to make sure they didn't illegally transfer them.
Priorities.