Daniel Tencer of RawStory offers "Tea partiers punk’d into supporting removal of white people from US" (rawstory.com/2009/11/tea-partiers-punked-white-people video at peekURL.com/v5h3vrp). Both the underlying story and his treatment of it are explicitly anti-American:
A speaker at an anti-immigration rally in Minneapolis this past weekend got the crowd to support more than just the deportation of all illegal immigrants -- he got them cheering for the eviction of all European-descended immigrants to America who "stole this land through genocide and ethnic cleansing."
...One of those protesters, going by the alias "Robert Erickson," got a speaking spot at the rally and used it to argue for the eviction of all descendants of European immigrants -- in other words, that contingent of white Americans who these days see themselves as "real" Americans...
..."Let's send these European immigrants back where they came from," he said to wild cheers. "We need to send every one of them back home. ... They stole this land through genocide and ethnic cleansing."
There are a few angles to this story:
1. The event was organized by ALIPAC (againstamnesty.com) and, as can be seen by their name they were trying to piggyback anti-amnesty on the wider tea parties movement. Whether they got any help from any other tea party groups isn't known, but neither Glenn Reynolds nor Pajamas Media nor FreedomWorks nor other usual suspects promoted them; this illustrates once again that those pulling the strings on the tea parties movement are libertarians who at the least are weak on immigration if not outright open borders loons.
2. The "partiers" bend over backwards to point out that their movement isn't just for white people; Tencer is just smearing them.
3. The tea parties - because they have little or no intellectual footing - were unable to do the effective thing and point out - on video - how "Erickson" was wrong.
4. This puts "liberals" once again on the side of corrupt businesses and governments, enablers of illegal activity, and enablers of lowering wages for low-wage American workers.
5. The tea partiers should have pointed out that "Erickson's" speech was explicitly anti-American: he was disputing the authority of the United States over its territory, and doing so in a racial way. They could have asked him whether those from Central and South America had a right to move to the U.S. territory at will, and then ask him whether, for instance, someone of completely German extraction from Argentina also has that right. If not him, what about someone with native blood? "How much native blood? One drop?" And so on. They could have turned the tables on him and made him look the fool, showing him to be the anti-American racist he is.
Note: the story is also at the following; seeing if you can find any pro-American comments is left as an exercise:
UPDATE: Others supporting the incident include Amanda Terkel of ThinkProgress ("Interloper tricks Tea Party audience into an anti-European immigrant chant of 'Columbus go home!'", thinkprogress.org/2009/11/16/columbus-go-home), Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic (links to the preceding, saying only "An anti-immigration rally gets punk'd by an impostor", andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/columbus-go-home.html), Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks radio show (peekURL.com/vrfeu4y), and Dawn Teo of the Huffington Post ("Tea Partiers Punked, Prankster Leads Chant "Columbus Go Home" (VIDEO)", huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/tea-partiers-punked-prank_b_360693.html).
6/20/11 UPDATE: The comment by Aris Katsaris below makes clear that basic concepts are difficult for some to understand, so let me add some more:
1. Tencer is indeed smearing the teapartiers by referring to that contingent of white Americans who these days see themselves as "real" Americans. If it's not obvious enough from the above that I'm not a fan of the teapartiers, see the tea parties page. However, they aren't a race-oriented group: their false implications that they're the only patriots in the U.S. and they're the only "real" Americans isn't racially-based. White teapartiers are more than willing to admit non-whites into their group as long as those non-whites are as crazy as they are.
2. Disputing "the immigrants' authority over American territory" is the same thing as denying U.S. sovereignty. Those "immigrants" are citizens of the U.S., a political entity that controls this part of North America. The U.S. has fundamental rules: this is the U.S.'s territory, those born here aren't "immigrants" but are citizens and jointly control the U.S., and so on. Having "no problem with those Native Americans that helped form the United States" but having problems with other citizens is to deny fundamental U.S. concepts and to seek to replace the U.S. government with some other form of (race-based) government. The U.S.-as-stolen-land concept wouldn't simply change our laws, but would replace the U.S. government with some other form of government.
That's different from admitting the sovereignty of the U.S. while at the same time complaining about or seeking redress for past wrongs; Erickson isn't doing that.
3. Erickson's satire has no bearing on anything involved in the immigration debate. I've never heard anyone suggest stripping masses of people of their citizenship based on their race or on anything else. The birthright citizenship issue is about not giving children of illegal aliens citizenship, not about taking citizenship away. A child of illegal aliens would have citizenship of their parents' country, they just wouldn't be given citizenship of this country.
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 12:49 · Importance: 4