Every problem we have right now is due to the globalization that has been happening since 1945. Environmental damage, culture clashes, income inequality – all the result of globalization. Progressives started globalization because they said it was the only way to avoid nuclear war. Now they say we need it because our economy depends on it; they’re right in a way, but what they mean is the economy of our elites – who are all progressives – depends on it.
You raised “social complexity” for a specific reason, that it drove they guy to do what he did. The links only show that it has been discussed. There isn’t a conclusion. Skimming the list of papers it looks like there are a range of opinions. So I don’t know where to start or what facts, logic, or conclusions you are supporting.
All of those things have existed forever.
There must be some specific form or aspect of it that you are referring to.
So Elon Musk is not an elite, or he’s progressive? The Koch brothers are progressives? Walmart family?
1 Like
Environmental damage a result of globalization?
Really? You don’t think conservative hatred of regulations increases environmental damage? You don’t think Trump’s “Drill, baby, drill.” might increase environmental damage? Or his shunning of scientists’ warnings of climate change?
Culture clashes are a result of globalization? Really? You don’t think it’s the conservative hatred of anyone not white christian american?
Income inequality a result of globalization?
Really? You don’t think this might be due to a failed policy of trickle down economics? You don’t think that Trump tax cuts for the rich might increase income inequality?
Really? This was all because of progressives?
Ronald Reagan:
“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”
George H.W.:
“No nation on Earth has discovered a way to import the world’s goods and services while stopping foreign ideas at the border,”
George W:
“What some call globalization is in fact the triumph of human liberty across national borders”
1 Like
I’ve been listening to these. The mom has a great story of her immigrated grandmother. She was Italian and they were the “immigrants du jour”, the ones who were lynched, picked on, didn’t get police services, and were called vermin by the President. There is no logic to this, it’s part of human emotions that people are susceptible to scapegoating and directing anger at anything but the actual people causing actual problems (usually rich white men in this half of the world).
Beside the 100 year perspective, the two of them do some research and recall their experiences of Prop 187 in CA, Reagan, on up through today. They aren’t academics, but they do good research. They occasionally falter, and I imagine get a few facts wrong, but they cross many disciplines and give a view that is worth considering.
Key timeline
2008 - Bush had brought the world economy to the edge of collapse
Obama focused on long time undocumented people while also shutting down the border to show Republicans he was serious. Then they couldn’t get immigration reform, so Obama backed off and did executive orders. We were at decades lows when Trump stepped in.
2016 Trump doesn’t care, he says build a wall. The type of immigrants has changed from single men to families, and he starts arressting the parents, basically terrorizing them. This takes resources and more criminals are getting in.
2020 Covid allows complete shutdown, making Trump’s numbers look good.
Meanwhile, the world is in chaos and they all see our border is a mess so people are coming from all over, the numbers go way up. Republicans love this and do nothing.
Now, Trump is saying immigrants will steal benefit money, while simultaneously saying he is going to cut benefits.
We could be spending all these resources on helping the states where the immigrants are, the ones that have jobs that average Americans don’t want. We could help with educating and giving everyone in those areas health care. But, you gotta wonder, who is benefitting from this? Hint: it’s not the immigrants and it’s not the coyotes.
Our elites are benefitting. GOP wants a cheap labor force and Liberals want a cheap labor force and a reliable voting block. Liberals also just want more non-Whites in general. So liberals are bigger problem here.
I’ve said before blaming immigrants is missing the big picture. They wouldn’t be here if US elites didn’t open the door. However, that doesn’t mean we have to like them. Not all immigrants are the same, and forced diversity is going to start trouble. It’s as simple as that.
Those presidents came later, but they were 100% on board with it anyway despite their milquetoast conservativism. When WW2 ended, the winners – who were the progressives of their day – established a global liberal order which paved the way for globalization.
Yes and no.
The western winners of WWII were progressive, especially if compared to Reagan, thatcher and their followers. But their progressiveness was very relative. They were capitalists and they were not socialists.
And, yes they established a liberal order, tempered by a Fordian Keynesian compromise, establishing welfare state and so. they had to demonstrate to their populations that they were doing better than the Soviet system.
Helped by imperialism, low energy costs and the necessity of rebuilding West, they gave us 30 glorious years. Remember that the worries at the beginnings of the 70 were the leisure society and the end of work.
This ideological, economical and social system was thrown down at the beginnings of the seventies.
The rise of the energy costs with the big increase of oil prices broke down one component.
The work of Milton Friedman and the Chicago school boys sapped the ideological foundations of the Keynesian compromise.
The crash of the soviet system made it useless to capitalists.
They set up globalization, to maximize profits, and mainly financial ones, inventing new tools. the invested in third word countries to cut costs of production, braking their markets buying power. and so
Remember that at the beginnings of the seventies Oil Major companies, US states and British state scientists predicted the climate change and decided not only to do nothing, but to deny it.
2 Likes
It can be challenging to see the world from your point of view. It assumes a “door” can be made and an easy choice to keep it closed. That there is “us and them”. That diversity is a choice, as if it’s the natural order for different cultures to remain isolated.
Not too long ago you argued that immigration had happened throughout the world and throughout history, refuting my “nation of immigrants” comment. Your “not all the same” comment is correct, but I can’t figure out why you say it. “We’re all human” seems more relevant of a phrase. If you want to isolate yourself, go ahead, but most of us like getting out now and then.
1 Like
Right, since the U.S. outlawed slavery all we need is the whites. That thought disgusts me. I accept that you have no free will and you have no choice but to be who you are. You make me very happy to be me. Thank you.
Can somebody tell me the difference between pink and other colored people?
Caucasians are not always white; skin color amongst Caucasians varies widely — from pale, reddish-white, olive, or even dark brown tones. Hair color and texture varies too, with wavy hair the most common.
There are no “white” people unless you are an “albino”, an aberration from the colored norm.
1 Like
When homo sapiens came out from Africa, he was black.
Skin tone evolved to answer to the lesser sun.
1 Like
As did the various social orders in accordance with the challenges imposed by different environments around the world where humans settled.
1 Like
Yes, Whites aren’t exactly White and Blacks aren’t exactly Black. Those terms are close enough, though.
No they are not. The only term close enough is Human (Homo Sapiens)
The problem with this is humans vary so much in appearance that we have to use other terms to describe how we look.
That is a very unreliable sandard. There are plenty blacks who look white, and plenty whites who look black and then there are the mixed
Would the description, “light skinned” and “dark skinned” persons not be more accurate?
Diversity is a choice, and there is a “door”. Look at this country’s own immigration laws and how they have varied over time. For most of history different cultures were pretty isolated. When different peoples mixed it was driven by something like war or slavery. The kind of multicultural society that we live in now is an experiment that has never been done before.
How the hell can you not understand why I say not all immigrants are the same? Some are better than others, and that means we need to be more discerning.
The system didn’t end in the 70s, it worked up until the last decade or so. Now it’s dying out.
No there aren’t.
No, because there’s more than skin color that makes us look different. For example these Indians have the same skin colors as many Black Americans, but their facial features and hair are different:
In fact, you disagree because you use 2 different definitions:
- In USA, as far as i understand, in the old times, any people with even a drop of black blood was defined as black. And, in fact, this idea stays.
And it gives this sort of data: In 2016, more non-Hispanic whites died than were born in twenty-six states; more than at any time in U.S. history. Some 179 million residents or roughly 56 percent of the U.S. population, lived in these 26 states In contrast, non-Hispanic white (hereafter referred to as white) deaths exceeded births in just four states in 2004 and seventeen as recently as 2014. White deaths also exceeded white births in the nation as a whole for the first time in U.S. history in 2016, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
But, in fact, this data is senseless, as many so called black have a good % of " white " blood, as many so called black people have white ancestry.
White supremacist discovers he has 14 % black blood
In France, racial statistics are forbidden.
And to judge people according the color of skin does not give better results.
.
2 Likes