That's a tu quoque fallacy. And you can't even construct that fallacy without holding children responsible for the crimes of their parents. To many generations. Not just, "Well, you do it too!" but "Well, your g-g-g-g-grandfather!" If this fallacy is now a acceptable reason not to enforce the law, then no law can be enforced, because if you go back far enough, everyone has some offender in their bloodline.
Hell, Barack Obama's white ancestors owned slaves. Does that mean we have to legalize slavery again?
Actually I agree with ernunnos on this one. I think that this particular permutation of the "we are a nation of immigrants" argument – that whitey illegally or immorally immigrated into America, stole the land from the natives, etc. – is pretty weak.
It was a wildly different context, and ernunnos is right about both the tu quoque fallacy and the sins-of-the-father argument.
I think Western Civilization has been wonderful for the world, and in the grand sweep, I'm glad that it spread to the Americas (although I'm not glad about how it spread). There's nothing we can do about the barbarism of some of the European and American conquerors of centuries past, and those cultures hadn't yet discovered some moral truths we take for granted – that we're all human, that all human races/colors are of equal moral worth, and that human life is incredibly precious. To go all tu quoque on your asses, the natives had not discovered these truths either.
Moreover, this tu quoque argument is extremely ineffective against ernunni. He and his crew are law rationalists. They say things like "what part of illegal don't you understand?" and "the law is the law" (and also "dur takin' ur jobs!", which is a different argument). They place legality above liberty. The past doesn't matter to them – what matters is what some half-assed legislature decided the law was going to be. And anyone who breaks the law against moving to America and washing dishes is labeled a "criminal" with the same moral gravity assigned to someone who breaks the law against murdering people.
A lot of these people conveniently drop their law rationalism when brown people are not in the picture – for example, when it comes to gun laws. They have no qualms about illegal auto conversions, criminally short shotgun barrels, etc. These are all peaceful activities – as peaceful as moving to America – so I have no problem with said criminal activity. This is because I champion liberty over legality, and reality over floating abstractions. I encourage ernunnos to do the same.
Let the above paragraph serve as an example of one possibly legitimate use of tu quoque: pointing out an inconsistency in an opponent's argument that is germane to a deeper point?
Interestingly, the people against other people moving to America very often use a tu quoque argument: "Look at Mexico's (restrictive) immigration laws!" (They see me and other Hispanic Americans as representing Mexico in some sense, which makes it a tq argument, in addition to a non sequitur.) This is the only issue in which I ever see the conservative/nativist/racist axis arguing that we should emulate some other country, and it amuses me to no end that that country is Mexico.
Thanks for the kind words, but you're misrepresenting my position. I am emphatically not a legal absolutist. If amnesty and open borders were passed tomorrow, I would not say, "Oh well, that's the law." My concern is cultural. We have a collision between two cultures. One which does feature a certain amount of respect for the rule of law, which I view as a (mostly) good thing, and one which features a great amount of disregard for the rule of law in the form of a tolerance for bribery and corruption. There are also cultural differences in education, racism (Mexico is an extremely racist nation, and latin gangs are already practicing violent racial cleansing in certain areas of California), socialist demands, and tolerance for drunken driving. Nor is my concern for the color of immigrants' skin. I do not like the fact that white Russian immigrants are bringing their anti-gay beliefs with them into my country. I view it as a positive sign that I now see more black faces working in restaurants since Arizona passed its law requiring businesses to verify eligibility.
The question is: what kind of culture do we want to live in? If you believe Mexican values and culture are superior, there is already a place where you can enjoy those things. It is called Mexico. The mere fact that so many Mexicans wish to come here proves conclusively that American culture is objectively superior. Mexicans prefer to live in American culture too. I agree with them. Unfortunately, once they get here, they set about doing everything possible to undermine the very thing that they came here to partake of.
No, they really don't. There's a reason that the emission check stations here in Arizona have signs stating that bribing the staff is a crime... in Spanish in LARGE letters, and in English in smaller type below.
What open-borders anarcho-capitalists fail (or refuse) to recognize is that the Mexicans they're welcoming with open arms didn't create an anarcho-capitalist utopia where they came from, and they're not coming here for the opportunity to become part of an anarcho-capitalist society. At best, they're coming to enjoy the benefits of a nation built on the rule of law - including immigration law. At worst, they're coming to take advantage of the modicum of socialism we already have. And according to the signs they wave at their May 1st protests (and as Eddie Murphy would put it, "That's a hint 'n a half for yo ass!") to further the cause of socialism.
I hate socialism, and socialists. Californians, Mexicans (same thing, these days), Kennedys from Massachusetts. And anarchists are nothing but useful idiots for socialists. Observe, socialists have had successful revolutions, and long runs in power. Anarcho-capitalists can't even get it together long enough to buy a cruise ship to run according to their ideals. Sometimes I think their desire to sink my state under the weight of their socialist allies is simple retaliation for the fact that we don't blindly bow to their genius. If they can't get their way, they'll make us pay. To hell with actually doing the heavy lifting of creating a shining city on a hill that everyone else will want to join. Which is, ironically, exactly what the American Republic has achieved.
To hell with actually doing the heavy lifting of creating a shining city on a hill that everyone else will want to join. Which is, ironically, exactly what the American Republic has achieved.
So Americans get to take pride in the achievements of their parents ("creating a shining city on a hill"), but it's a fallacy to "[hold] children responsible for the crimes of their parents." (see above) Got it.
Who said anything about pride? I didn't. If you asked me - instead of just creating a straw man - I'd say Americans should appreciate the achievements of their parents. Have some humility - the exact opposite of pride - for the great gift they've received. And show that appreciation by taking care of it. Try to pass it on to the next generation in as good a condition as they received it.
So Americans should take grateful humility in the achievements of their parents, but they shouldn't feel any shame for the crimes of their parents. Got it.
(I don't know that I needed to log back in just to swap those words out, but if it makes it clearer I don't mind)
Who said that? Not me. I have no problem with shame. Some shameful shit happened. But shame is not a reason to repeat the mistakes of the people they treated shamefully. And feeling shame is not the same as accepting punishment.
See the political cartoon at the head of the post.
The shameful displacement of the natives and their culture in no way obligates modern Americans to allow themselves and their culture to be displaced. If you really want to honor their loss, learn from their mistakes well enough not to repeat them.
I don't believe the cartoonist was using that cartoon to advance the argument that Arizona's white residents ought to evacuate because their ancestors murdered Arizona's native tribes. For one, that's a silly argument; for another, that's an insane policy.
This hearkens back to an argument I was having on the last OTI podcast. I don't think that most forms of political art are meant to advance a specific policy. The message of 1984 is not, "the USSR should do x"; the message of "Guernica" is not, "Germany should do y." Art is not an argument. Art, if done well, can convey an emotional response that'll shift the audience's viewpoint, hopefully making them more receptive to arguments. But policy is complex and art is blunt.
So, as I said earlier: I think the "punchline" of this cartoon is that we're none of us saints. That's irrelevant to the debate over policy, as you point out (tu quoque), but I think that's all the artist meant to advance.
(Of course, I'm no mind-reader; if the artist really wanted this one-panel to convey an articulate policy, then I'm just spitting in the dark. But political cartoons are poor arguments)
So, as I said earlier: I think the "punchline" of this cartoon is that we're none of us saints.
And? That's not an end. It's not a political point. This is a political cartoon. It's meant to inspire some kind of action, promote a political position. Not a religious or moral point. And the argument that Arizona's white residents ought to evacuate because their ancestors stole land from the natives is one that is often made. You're right, it's insane, but insane positions are put forth in politics all the time. Given that it's common, and the alternative makes even less sense in the context of a political cartoon, I see no reason to believe the cartoonist (or people who repost the cartoon) mean anything else by it.
That's been one of my favs for years. Attribution is Steve Kelly, San Diego Union-Tribune, 1994. Always made me a wee bit extra happy that it originated from my hometown paper (where I had my first job as paperboy in fact).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 07:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 10:21 pm (UTC)Hell, Barack Obama's white ancestors owned slaves. Does that mean we have to legalize slavery again?
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 12:56 am (UTC)Actually I agree with ernunnos on this one. I think that this particular permutation of the "we are a nation of immigrants" argument – that whitey illegally or immorally immigrated into America, stole the land from the natives, etc. – is pretty weak.
It was a wildly different context, and ernunnos is right about both the tu quoque fallacy and the sins-of-the-father argument.
I think Western Civilization has been wonderful for the world, and in the grand sweep, I'm glad that it spread to the Americas (although I'm not glad about how it spread). There's nothing we can do about the barbarism of some of the European and American conquerors of centuries past, and those cultures hadn't yet discovered some moral truths we take for granted – that we're all human, that all human races/colors are of equal moral worth, and that human life is incredibly precious. To go all tu quoque on your asses, the natives had not discovered these truths either.
Moreover, this tu quoque argument is extremely ineffective against ernunni. He and his crew are law rationalists. They say things like "what part of illegal don't you understand?" and "the law is the law" (and also "dur takin' ur jobs!", which is a different argument). They place legality above liberty. The past doesn't matter to them – what matters is what some half-assed legislature decided the law was going to be. And anyone who breaks the law against moving to America and washing dishes is labeled a "criminal" with the same moral gravity assigned to someone who breaks the law against murdering people.
A lot of these people conveniently drop their law rationalism when brown people are not in the picture – for example, when it comes to gun laws. They have no qualms about illegal auto conversions, criminally short shotgun barrels, etc. These are all peaceful activities – as peaceful as moving to America – so I have no problem with said criminal activity. This is because I champion liberty over legality, and reality over floating abstractions. I encourage ernunnos to do the same.
Let the above paragraph serve as an example of one possibly legitimate use of tu quoque: pointing out an inconsistency in an opponent's argument that is germane to a deeper point?
Interestingly, the people against other people moving to America very often use a tu quoque argument: "Look at Mexico's (restrictive) immigration laws!" (They see me and other Hispanic Americans as representing Mexico in some sense, which makes it a tq argument, in addition to a non sequitur.) This is the only issue in which I ever see the conservative/nativist/racist axis arguing that we should emulate some other country, and it amuses me to no end that that country is Mexico.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 01:18 am (UTC)The question is: what kind of culture do we want to live in? If you believe Mexican values and culture are superior, there is already a place where you can enjoy those things. It is called Mexico. The mere fact that so many Mexicans wish to come here proves conclusively that American culture is objectively superior. Mexicans prefer to live in American culture too. I agree with them. Unfortunately, once they get here, they set about doing everything possible to undermine the very thing that they came here to partake of.
That I cannot abide.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 04:13 am (UTC)What open-borders anarcho-capitalists fail (or refuse) to recognize is that the Mexicans they're welcoming with open arms didn't create an anarcho-capitalist utopia where they came from, and they're not coming here for the opportunity to become part of an anarcho-capitalist society. At best, they're coming to enjoy the benefits of a nation built on the rule of law - including immigration law. At worst, they're coming to take advantage of the modicum of socialism we already have. And according to the signs they wave at their May 1st protests (and as Eddie Murphy would put it, "That's a hint 'n a half for yo ass!") to further the cause of socialism.
I hate socialism, and socialists. Californians, Mexicans (same thing, these days), Kennedys from Massachusetts. And anarchists are nothing but useful idiots for socialists. Observe, socialists have had successful revolutions, and long runs in power. Anarcho-capitalists can't even get it together long enough to buy a cruise ship to run according to their ideals. Sometimes I think their desire to sink my state under the weight of their socialist allies is simple retaliation for the fact that we don't blindly bow to their genius. If they can't get their way, they'll make us pay. To hell with actually doing the heavy lifting of creating a shining city on a hill that everyone else will want to join. Which is, ironically, exactly what the American Republic has achieved.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 03:00 pm (UTC)So Americans get to take pride in the achievements of their parents ("creating a shining city on a hill"), but it's a fallacy to "[hold] children responsible for the crimes of their parents." (see above) Got it.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 03:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 03:41 pm (UTC)(I don't know that I needed to log back in just to swap those words out, but if it makes it clearer I don't mind)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 03:50 pm (UTC)But shame is not a reason to repeat the mistakes of the people they treated shamefully.
You've lost me here; I'm not sure whom "the people" and "they" refer to in the contemporary instance, or who would be repeating what.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 04:01 pm (UTC)The shameful displacement of the natives and their culture in no way obligates modern Americans to allow themselves and their culture to be displaced. If you really want to honor their loss, learn from their mistakes well enough not to repeat them.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 04:11 pm (UTC)This hearkens back to an argument I was having on the last OTI podcast. I don't think that most forms of political art are meant to advance a specific policy. The message of 1984 is not, "the USSR should do x"; the message of "Guernica" is not, "Germany should do y." Art is not an argument. Art, if done well, can convey an emotional response that'll shift the audience's viewpoint, hopefully making them more receptive to arguments. But policy is complex and art is blunt.
So, as I said earlier: I think the "punchline" of this cartoon is that we're none of us saints. That's irrelevant to the debate over policy, as you point out (tu quoque), but I think that's all the artist meant to advance.
(Of course, I'm no mind-reader; if the artist really wanted this one-panel to convey an articulate policy, then I'm just spitting in the dark. But political cartoons are poor arguments)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 04:22 pm (UTC)And? That's not an end. It's not a political point. This is a political cartoon. It's meant to inspire some kind of action, promote a political position. Not a religious or moral point. And the argument that Arizona's white residents ought to evacuate because their ancestors stole land from the natives is one that is often made. You're right, it's insane, but insane positions are put forth in politics all the time. Given that it's common, and the alternative makes even less sense in the context of a political cartoon, I see no reason to believe the cartoonist (or people who repost the cartoon) mean anything else by it.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-08 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 07:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 08:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-07 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-09 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-10 12:16 am (UTC)