Woodrow Johnston's post on Facebook [June 30th, 2015]:
I'm going to probably get crap for this but I have read Donald Trump's transcript from his announcement speech and I don't see anything racist towards Hispanics, Mexicans, or anyone else. I'm Hispanic American myself, so if anyone should be offended, shouldn't I be? Univision and NBC have dropped Trump and a bunch of people are posting on Facebook that he is a racist.
My response:
The weirdest thing I found with this guy is that libertarians, somehow, do not discredit his statements despite the clear fact that he's far beyond from being a libertarian than Woodrow from being a communist. To be fair, why don't you hate this guy as much as you hate Obama? In government-intervention-terms, he's more mercantilist than Obama.
Another issue just for the record: he knows nothing. I found many issues that I've personally researched for essays and he states them as facts when they're just myths; like the one that says that Keynes is a socialist.
I truly respect everybody's opinion. However, in economics and other research-oriented disciplines, opinions do not lead to conclusions. But I do care about what this guy Trump claims.
We live in a democracy (or at least something close to it) in which what people think really matters. In addition, I find this topic a very interesting point for debate because there's several misconceptions: immigration destroys jobs, immigration brings problems from countries, immigrants live on welfare. My personal research have led me to conclude that the last instances are entirely misconceptions.
Nonetheless, since there's a huge gap in education among North Americans, the general public in the lowest percentiles would not be able to read any of my essays or understand others that are far better than mine. These essays lead to the conclusion I already stated: misconceptions on immigration. For the common people, it's better to persuade them with arguments fox-news-like than real research. Who's not going to "see the news at seven o'clock because what's in your refrigerator can be killing you." It's better than: the real salary of white and blue collar workers in the U.S. has been stagnated due to the mechanization of alienation and the lack of social spending from government.
I think my point is clear here.
Trump is aiming to the Fox News audience instead of the educated and well informed audience. That's why he uses raw statements and conservative cliches. The mind turns blue to the familiar while red to the unfamiliar. The red requires at least a bit of mind processes to become blue while the blue is more digestible.
Blue statements like:
"When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically."
Analyzing the latter, one confirms that this statement comes from the claim that each politician spreads during campaigns: the country is wrong; you can be better; you can be worse.
I'm salvation: "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. I tell you that." God is also blue in this country.
Now, the point: Racism.
I don't want you to forget the following:
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
People may assume that when he states [twice] that "they're not sending you" is because he's being fair. It would be a mistake to assume that he's as stupid as his character in the apprentice [or his public life], but he's smart; or at least he has a smart team.
Republicans have been telling since 2012 that if they want to touch the white throne again, they gotta keep the latinos on mind; or at least those who vote. It would be a mistake to push aside latinos who vote since he's unable constitutionally to push them back to their countries. He needs them and wants to state that while keeping the fox news voters on his side too. Then, the problem becomes only "the mexican [as he puts it] illegal immigration".
The discrimination is not only racial, now. It becomes racial and estructural. The problem are those who come to this country illegally because "they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." He's creating antagonism directed to someone's legal status and race.
Isn't that discrimination according to the definition? Or just because he assumes that some immigrants are good that does not turn a prejudice? "Some" means "a bit from the portion". Hence, isn't he staying that the majority of illegal immigrants fall on that category? Believing that the majority of illegal immigrants are rapist is not a prejudice?
No comments:
Post a Comment