Most Jamaicans think they’d be better off if they were still a British colony.
No kidding. Decolonialization, particularly for the British Empire, was a disaster for most of the former colonies, particularly in Africa (of which Haiti is a bit of, in the western hemisphere).
They removed it when the glue was still wet on the thin veneer of Civilization.
It needed longer to take. The progressives got their wish and tens of millions are dead and tens more under oppressive governments because of it.
Or to quote another forum: “Africa wins again!”
Well, killing millions of “undesirables” has long been a mainstay of their “progress”…
Wait, you think being in the UK (with no right to vote) is a desirable state of affairs, what with the high taxes, invasive EU regulations, gun control, and national health service? Well, even if the UK isn’t a libertarian paradise, at least it is, except for some trivial ceremonial trivialities, a republic.
Wait, you think being in the UK (with no right to vote) is a desirable state of affairs, what with the high taxes, invasive EU regulations, gun control, and national health service
Not “desirable,” but preferable to the status quo.
Freedom isn’t free, but now I’m wondering how much nationalized health care, gun control, and invasive regulations it would take to buy yours. 🙂
Wow, Rand. Bob-1 totally has you pegged. You’re totally into “nationalized health care, gun control, and invasive regulations”!
I didn’t say I wanted to live there under either circumstance, Bob. I was simply agreeing with them that they were, and would be better off under colonial rule. But please, remain obtuse.
Bob,
Which part of ‘better vs best’ isn’t clear?
Having been to Jamaica (not simply the resorts and beaches), I would suggest that East Germany in the middle of a Stasi surge would be preferable.
Wait, you think being in the UK (with no right to vote) is a desirable state of affairs, what with the high taxes, invasive EU regulations, gun control, and national health service?
None of those things existed when the Haiti was part of the mighty British Empire on which the sun never set.
Now they are, and now the Empire is gone and the UK is a shadow of what it used to be. Pure coincidence, I’m sure.
I’m teasing. But there are interesting questions to ask, even aside from the obvious questions about libertarian ideology. For example, you could wonder about the exceptions to the rule: former colonies that did prosper, and places that remained under British rule yet didn’t prosper. There aren’t any large British colonies anymore, but some countries decolonized later than others, and their experiences in the days just before decolonization might be compared. Also, there are overseas British territories like Turks and Caicos, which recently had a problematic experiment with self-government.
The colonial experience varied greatly depending on the colonizing nation. Back in the 1980s, my wife (a Filipina) stated that she didn’t know of any former colony of Spain that ever amounted to anything. Chile might be an exception today. Anyway, she claimed that the Spainish influence led to endemic corruption as a way of life. Having grown up in a former Spanish colony and being a young adult under the Marcos dictatorship, her opinion was interesting to say the least.
As colonizing nations go, the British were relatively benign compared to Spain or Belgium. If the Jamacians are saying that things were better under British colonial rule than they are under self-rule today, who are we to argue with them? They would obviously know more about it than any of us.
Pitcairn Island, which might be of interest to people interested in the social dynamics of small independent space colonies, remained under British rule and yet turned into one screwed up child-raping place. This example doesn’t generalize — but that’s the problem: the remaining British colonies are small and don’t shed much light on what would have happened if large countries like Kenya had remained under British rule.
Larry, interesting comment, although look at this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG
The definition of “former Spanish colony” obviously has multiple possible definitions, but surely there are places on that map that you and your wife would agree have “ever amounted to anything”. (For example: Florida, although I guess Rand might disagree somewhat.)
She was talking about countries. Even so, you can look at some US states that were formerly Spanish colonies and see similar problems, such as California and New Mexico.
None of those things existed when the Haiti was part of the mighty British Empire on which the sun never set.
Haiti was French. In fact, it’s a perfect illustration of how disastrous sudden decolonialization can be when it’s premature. Haiti liberated itself in a violent slave revolt a couple hundred years ago, and has been a godawful mess ever since (as I said, the only outpost of Africa in the western hemisphere).
Interestingly, almost all the blacks I encountered living in south Florida weren’t “African-Americans,” but Haitians (many of them worked at the Publix supermarket). Unlike many of the descendants of those we freed from slavery ourselves a century and a half ago, they were wonderful people, and very grateful to be here. Terrible drivers, though.
Oops, right, I meant Jamaica of course. Don’t know where “Haiti” came from.
Are you saying that if you pick two people at random except that one is an African-American whose ancestors were enslaved in the USA in the mid 1800s and one is a Haitian who emigrated to South Florida (or perhaps whose parents or grandparents emigrated), the Haitian is more likely to be a wonderful person?
If by “wonderful person” one means “less likely to be resentful and carry a grievance chip on their shoulder,” and not think we live in a “downright mean country,” yes. Though in the case of the Haitians, I was referring to actual immigrants, not their offspring.
Bob,
I realize that your latest question (12:29 pm) wasn’t directed at me, but let me offer a reply anyway.
Yes…the recent immigrants from Haiti are FAR more likely to be ‘wonderful people’ than a random African-American who is the descendent of American Slaves.
Before I am tagged as a hopeless racist (go right ahead if you choose to…the label lost any meaning long ago)…the difference is that the recent immigrant hasn’t had the ‘benefit’ of the Great Society, Affirmative Action, Grievance Studies, etc. They actually know how bad it is elsewhere, and don’t have any illusions about how fortunate they are to be here, and how much worse it is outside of the US.
Let me be blunt…I suspect that you are intelligent enough to actually know all of this, but the temptation for a cheap rhetoric point was too much for you to pass up…
Immigrants in general tend to be more grateful than people born here since native-born Americans take America’s blessings for granted, but comparing Haitians to African-Americans in particular seems, um, unnecessary at best if you want to make that particular point. But I suppose you didn’t want to make that point.
So, basically, you’re saying that people who have to put up with American racism on a regular basis are less likely to not have grievances if they come from a place that is even worse. What a surprise. Getting back to the benefits of life in the British colonies, this discussion of greivances reminds me of the American founding fathers, who lived in one of the most enlightened colonies on Earth, with the most freedom and the best standard of living, and they threw it away to suffer life in wartime because they had grievances. I think that you should celebrate the 4th of July by contemplating the restoration of the British Empire! Better yet, an Empire where people know their place and don’t have any uppity grievances!
The former British colonies did best for two reasons, English Common Law and the communication infrastructure the British were so big on building. But most failed to understand the key role of British finance and banking in wealth.
So, basically, you’re saying that people who have to put up with American racism on a regular basis are less likely to not have grievances if they come from a place that is even worse. What a surprise.
I am saying that they recognize that while racism exists in America (and everywhere) they also recognize that things have greatly improved in that regard over the years and that it is not holding them back, whereas many those born here blame it for their lot in life, which allows them to avoid the painful introspection into their own behavior and culture that actually holds them back. They are encouraged in this by the real racists in the Democrat Party and media, who don’t believe that people with dark skin can make it without their “help.” And most of the time, in fact, when a “liberal” calls a real liberal a “racist,” it is projection.
Getting back to the benefits of life in the British colonies, this discussion of greivances reminds me of the American founding fathers, who lived in one of the most enlightened colonies on Earth, with the most freedom and the best standard of living, and they threw it away to suffer life in wartime because they had grievances.
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with grievances per se. The issue is a) whether or not they are justified and b) what one does with them. The Founders never demanded handouts from their ostensible oppressors. They sought freedom.
Things have greatly improved: most African Americans are middle class suburbanites. I would expect them to be “wonderful people”, particularly using the phrase in the sense you meant. But even well-off African Americans still regularly encounter racism, and I wouldn’t expect them to be happy about it.
Meanwhile, people who look back fondly at British rule are indeed looking for handouts, sort of like Russians who look back fondly at Communism.
There plenty of naturally born Americans who appreciate the blessings of being born in America and understand the opportunity they were given if they will take it, maybe not 100% understood like a immigrant or even first generation. But they certainly understand it more than Rand straw man of a former slave descendent.
Though I not sure how prevalent that particularly straw man is, they do exist and have met a small percentage of, in my rather sheltered and limited experience . Could even say our first lady at least in some portrayals is an example. Though would say my experience let me meet more people with more work ethic/”successful” were of recent Haiti/African descent than of slave descent.
Bob lets introduce another straw man but would you say the immigrants who form Latino/Mexican gangs in California or part of California liberation are grateful?
But even well-off African Americans still regularly encounter racism, and I wouldn’t expect them to be happy about it.
Oh ferfuxsake, Bob. Single fathers regularly encounter prejudice, and so do Jews and fat people and ugly women and boys named Sue. Should we attempt to legislate against human folly and pettiness? Do we need a Constitutional Amendment banning bad luck or stupidity, and if so, who would you like to enforce it?
The idea of the Reconstruction Amendments was to forbid legal discrimination, i.e. the passing of laws that explicitly disadvantage one race. The niotion that our goal should wildly expand to that of the government attempting to extirpate by force of law all prejudice, root and branch, from the mind of every American citizen is semipsychotic delusion.
Which only persists because, being an utterly impossible goal, it can suck up resorces and provide power to the apparatchiks charged with implementing it forever and ever. Like a medieval priesthood, they’re always needing our tithing, because we’ll always need their prayer to intercede with God for remission of our sins.
Carl, I thought we were talking about chips on shoulders rather than laws and constitutional amendments. If ugly female fat Jews and male Sues have chips on their shoulder, I’m not going to say “why can’t you be as grateful as people who come from hellholes”. And if I meet someone from a hellhole who looks back with nostalgia on unjust governance, I’m going to suggest that there additional choices besides colonial subjugation (or communism, as the case may be).
“people who have to put up with American racism on a regular basis”
You mean like Americans of Asian (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc.) extraction have to put up with from blacks? Yeah, that stuff sucks.
Again, why single out African Americans? If an Asian American suffers from racial discrimination, I’d expect them to be pissed off about it, but why does it matter if the discrimination comes from an African American or from someone else?
But speaking of discrimination against Asians: The kind of discrimination Carl was talking about — institutional racism — might be exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act. And the Tea Party folks who want to repeal the 14th amendment might do well to study the US vs Wong Kim Ark — a story for patriots! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
There may be people who want to repeal the 14th Amendment, but I’m not aware of any. A few want to amend it.
At least four of them are US Senators:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/05/gop-senators-try-restrict-birthright-citizenship/#ixzz1IiHZnYPQ
But I guess it was mostly last year’s tea party news:
http://teapartyamerica.blogspot.com/2010/08/change-14th-amendment-no-more-anchor.html
Gee Bob, did you miss the part where Rand said “Amend It”.
Or perhaps you missed this part of the Fox News article: “Vitter and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., previously introduced the proposal as a constitutional amendment meant to change the 14th Amendment, which outlines citizenship rights.”
No mention of repeal in the article.
Or the headline of your second link: “Change the 14th Amendment!”
So Bob, do you know people who want to repeal the 14th Amendment, or do you agree with what Rand wrote that some might want to amend it? I’m fairly certain: change != repeal change = amend
Of course I meant amend. In particular, an amendment that repealed the protection that US citizen Wong Kim Ark received.
Then why did you say “repeal”? Maybe because that has more demagogic value?
“And the Tea Party folks who want to repeal the 14th amendment might do well to study…”
Oh look, Bob-1 is playing Teacher To The Rubes again. Soooooo sleeepyyyy… zzzzzzzz…
Rand, if members of Congress wanted to change the 1st amendment so that it allowed the abridgment of speech and denied the right of the people to rightfully assemble, I would have said “Hey! They are trying to repeal the 1st amendment!”
Under such circumstances, I’m sure you would jump up and disagree with me. I’m sure you’d point out that the establishment clause, for example, remained intact. And you’d accuse me of using the word “repeal” for its demagogic value… …right?
Really, Bob? The only point of the fourteenth amendment was to ensure citizenship to people born here?
Really?
Have you read it lately?
On the face of it, there was no reason for this thread to address racism. But I shouldn’t have been surprised: the question of citizenship has always been bound up with racism in American history, and not just with regard to slavery, as US vs Wong Kim Ark demonstrates. And so, in this thread which comically downplayed the value of citizenship and extolled the benefits of being subjugated by the British Empire – on a July 4th weekend(!) -, racism reared its ugly head.
Really Rand? The only point of the 1st amendment was to ensure free speech and the right of the people to assemble? Really? Have you read it recently?
Section 1 of the 14th amendment is the heart of the amendment — section 2, 3, and 4 don’t have much relevance in our era.
Section 1’s most important parts are the Citizenship Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Torpedoing the Citizenship Clause, a bulwark against institutional racism, is pretty damn significant, so I said “repeal” much as I would if the Freedom of Speech Clause in the 1st amendement was to be changed, but yes, I’ve already acknowledged that “repeal” wasn’t the right word. The key thing for me is to recognize the relationship between citizenship and institutional racism, both in the British Empire and in much of US history. We can acknowledge this relationship while not denying the unique and quite spectacular blessings both governments brought to the world between 1700 and, say, 1965. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause turned the tide in the USA, and I think the British Empire would have benefited from something like the citizenship clause as well (good thing Hong Kong worked out as well as it did after 1999).
Yes, Bob, people who aren’t “liberals” are racists.
We get it.
This will bore Andrea to tears, but the later parts of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law_and_Hong_Kong
are an eye-popping example of modern-day institutional racism (on the part of both the Chinese and British governments). I wouldn’t expect anything better from the Chinese regime, but I would have hoped that the British government would be more decent in this era. But no — they threw their own people to the communist wolves, quite explicitly on the basis of race.
Rand,
Please terminate this thread.
I find the comments personally offensive and racist. I also do not want to be drawn into an interminable argument about the relative merits of different nationalities in this country.
This thread has noting to do with racism (which was in fact my point). It is about cultures.
Bob: I wouldn’t expect anything better from the Chinese regime, but I would have hoped that the British government
Seems Bob hates Chinese and British. Perhaps Bob shouldn’t be going around calling everyone else racist.
the Citizenship Clause, a bulwark against institutional racism
In what way is the Citizenship Clause a bulwark against institutional racism (whatever that may be in this day and age; Jim Crowbeing nearly 50 years in the grave)? The only reason it was in there at all was to insure all slaves here after the Civil War were explicitly declared citizens regardless of their place of birth. The need for that particular protection died with the last foreign-born ex-slave. The civil rights legislation that ended Jim Crow was based on the Equal Protection clause.
Dick Eagleson: That turns out not to be the case. See the article on Supreme Court case I cited above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
That case has direct bearing on the so-called “anchor baby” dispute.
Here, Bob-1, this is for you.
“None of those things existed when the Haiti was part of the mighty British Empire on which the sun never set.”
It was spanish, then French and not forgetting the US occupation from 1915 – 1934
Of course the cited case has a direct bearing on the anchor baby dispute; it’s the basis upon which anchor babies exist as a class. What it doesn’t have anything to do with is civil rights. As I said, the U.S. Congress and the various state legislatures intended to protect freed slaves against arbitrary challenges to their citizenship. There is no evidence that they intended to enable “anchor baby” reproduction by foreign couples seeking an indirect shortcut to legal resident status or citizenship. As I noted, the original class whom this language was intended to help is now gone. The part of the 14th Amendment that now serves no purpose except to enable anchor babies needs to follow its beneficiaries into the mists of history. If neither of your parents are citizens, I see no reason why you should be regarded as one simply because your mom’s water broke when she happened to be physically present on U.S. soil. The degree to which this dodge is used to get around normal immigration procedures is both well-known and legion. And in addition to those whose motives are merely pecuniary, we’ve also had a few cases of Saudi and other obstreperous Muslim couples birthing their brats here, then going back to their countries of origin to raise them with the offspring later exploiting their technically “American” status to come back here and make mischief. This crap needs to stop. It’s not a race matter, it’s a matter of criminal or other malign intent. We have more than enough sharp characters in this country who are legitimate citizens. We don’t need to be importing more.
I don’t disagree with what Mr. Eagleson wrote, but I do want to put a slight spin on this in the interest of true debate.
If neither of your parents are citizens, I see no reason why you should be regarded as one simply because your mom’s water broke when she happened to be physically present on U.S. soil.
Let’s say we keep the 14th Amendment as is. The issue of “Anchor Baby” could be addressed by changing the policy that allows a child to sponsor their parents as citizens at age 21. Maybe a change that says if found to have illegally entered the country in the past, citizenship can only be obtained by Congressional approval. That doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment as worded. And while it leaves a pretty obvious loophole, it closes it enough to create a deterence. Indeed, such a change would not make a difference to the results of Wong Kim Ark.
As things currently exist, a child can be born of illegal immigrants in the US. The child becomes a citizen, and then a policy comes into affect that if the child is a citizen, it can’t be forced to leave the country. That’s reasonable. Except the policy then goes that since the child can’t be forced to leave, and the child needs its parents, the parents can’t be forced to leave. That’s where things become different from Wong Kim Ark. He went back to China with his parents. He was free to come back as a citizen, not his parents.