Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#191

Post by CalChris »

bostonpete wrote: post #166
CalChris wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whiteness is a theme of The Godfather , particularly the book but also the movie.

I know this is touched no in The Godfather II, when the Senator's talking to Michael. Where is whiteness a theme in the first movie?

Michael does not go into the family business. He goes to war. He goes to college. He marries a 'white' wife. He wants out of the family and to become an American; in essence, he wants to become white. Even his own family refers to him as the war hero with both pride and condescension. But he's drawn back into the family, back to his father.

Bonasera, the funeral director (corpse valet): I believe in America. America has made my fortune. But when Bonasera's daughter is raped, the (white, American) police did nothing. So he goes to the Godfather for justice.

There's always a distinction between white America and Michael's immigrant Italian-ness. Even the beginning of II, young Vito is an immigrant but is drawn back into his community. Always a distinction, cultural, ethnic, generational, racial.

The Godfather really is a/the great American novel.

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#192

Post by paulddraper »

tptacek wrote: post #176
paulddraper wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably why the "Muslim ban" wasn't a ban on Muslim immigration, but a ban on immigration from particular Middle East countries.

It is a ban on immigration exclusively from Muslim-majority countries with a bypass for Christians from those countries.

Christians do not have a pass.

That wouldn't make sense anyway...how would they prove their Christianity?

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#193

Post by dragonwriter »

paulddraper wrote: post #192
tptacek wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a ban on immigration exclusively from Muslim-majority countries with a bypass for Christians from those countries.

Christians do not have a pass. That wouldn't make sense anyway...how would they prove their Christianity?

> Christians do not have a pass.

Members of "minority religions" in their country of origin are eligible for waivers of the bans issued in the EO. Trump has specifically said that Christians would be a priority.

> That wouldn't make sense anyway...how would they prove their Christianity?

Whether it would make sense or not is irrelevant to whether it is actually part of the policy.

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#194

Post by toyg »

zeveb wrote: post #149
toyg wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there were Sacco and Vanzetti, of course.

> And there were Sacco and Vanzetti, of course. They were, of course, guilty — as their lawyer later told Upton Sinclair.

Yeah I'm sure we can trust the word of a novelist with a book to sell.

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#195

Post by pcwalton »

paulddraper wrote: post #174
and0 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bible and Quran share the same DNA. There's no difference between any type of religious extremism, just as there's no difference between any group of humans. The difference is context, and in the case of the Middle East the socioeconomic context is crushingly awful. Much of this (shoutouts to the Hypernomalization mention above, which I can't seem to reply to, excellent documentary) is even a result of more power…

That's probably why the "Muslim ban" wasn't a ban on Muslim immigration, but a ban on immigration from particular Middle East countries.

We don't need Internet message board speculation as to why the order was worded the way it was. The reason is that Giuliani suggested that particular language to try to make the executive order a "legal Muslim ban". This has been widely reported on--in fact, it was front page news a week ago.

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#196

Post by Red_Tarsius »

tptacek wrote: post #138
Red_Tarsius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Italian , I surely feel demonized by the Guardian style of 'journalism' and American leftists. Too bad no one is calling them out. I guess Fascist tendencies too are acknowledged out of convenience, not rationality.

You don't have to agree with 'KirinDave's comment, but to express that disagreement on HN, you have basically two options: 1. You can write a civil rebuttal that uses evidence to dismantle the point he's trying to make. 2. You can downvote him. What you should not do is write a comment like this, where you vent emotionally without providing anything for anyone to grasp onto or respond to. Those kinds of comments get…

To clarify: I've been a Guardian reader for years (as well as other moderate outlets) and used to share a few of its stances, until 2 ~ 3 years ago. Now white people, especially men, have become the modern enemy KirinDave was talking about. From silly to major issues of society, they are the convenient culprit to win over voters. Yet, such racial discrimination is accepted and normalized. The leftist youth of US is growing intolerant, righteous and prone to violence. My overseas friends' feeds were filled with academic excuses for blurting antiwhite racism and subtle calls for violence. I can only share a narrow/biased point of view. Data over time will eventually confirm/deny my impressions.

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#197

Post by anigbrowl »

throwaway000040 wrote: post #189
anigbrowl wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm impressed by the number of fallacies you manged to cram into a single run-on sentence.

I think I characterized by analogy the argument of both the article and the grandparent quite well: "Because many Anglo-Saxons despised the Irish and Italians a century ago, white people don't really exist as anything more than a social construct (someone apparently forgot to tell the NIH, CDC, and 23andme this), and the opposition to mass immigration from Somalia, Syria, or other countries in those regions is a resu…

Well, the first place to look would be in ethnic studies departments, which examine (exactly* such questions. Secondly, you might want to consider that 'East Asian' works OK as a geographic descriptor, but you're assuming that a western-originated social construct of 'East Asians' is held by the people who live in that region, most of whom I think would argue that their genetic similarities are superficial, just as almost all humans have two arms and two legs etc. I could also point to the rather complex internal history of the Asian countries you mention to highlight the existence of internal disagreements in those countries about the nature of identity, but that would involve a long historical detour and a ton of background material that neither of us likely has the inclination to review.

It might be worth mentioning that I regard your view of East Asian identity as extremely simplistic partly because I'm married to an Asian person and have had a disproportionately large number of friends from that region for several decades. Your homogenous characterization of the region is superficially persuasive but falls apart as soon as you look at the history of the region in any detail.

As for lacking the right to control immigration policy (a subject that was not in discussion but which is clearly what you want to express your views about, arguments against the restrictive immigration policy that obtains in the various East Asian countries are made all the time - not on the basis of those people lacking rights of self-determination but on the basis of economic utility. Finally, you overlook the fact that the the US (where I suspect you are based and whose immigration policy you're indirectly commenting on) was, unlike the East Asian countries you mention, explicitly founded on inclusive liberal ideas (as exemplified in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) rather than on an ethnic nationalist identity and that it's not unreasonable to evaluate US policy in the light of the assertions upon which it is nominally founded.

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#198

Post by KirinDave »

throwaway000040 wrote: post #189
anigbrowl wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm impressed by the number of fallacies you manged to cram into a single run-on sentence.

I think I characterized by analogy the argument of both the article and the grandparent quite well: "Because many Anglo-Saxons despised the Irish and Italians a century ago, white people don't really exist as anything more than a social construct (someone apparently forgot to tell the NIH, CDC, and 23andme this), and the opposition to mass immigration from Somalia, Syria, or other countries in those regions is a resu…

Ask any "East Indian" what their population and subgroups actually consist of and you will get an immediate list of subgroups, immigration history and ideological differences.

You're right that those are all equally social constructs. Same with Arabs, that's a massive group.

When someone is discriminated against with a broad brush their list of qualifications for "an ally" is often the other people equally maligned in that group, so if "Arabs" as a group talk back to discrimination against "Arabs" then that's an unsurprising development.

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#199

Post by anigbrowl »

humanrebar wrote: post #156
anigbrowl wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dispute your attempt to conflate protests against Trump's ban on entry with an indictment of middle America. People who support the ban do so for a variety of reasons and are not neatly grouped in the political center as you suggest, just as people who oppose the ban do so for a variety of reasons and can not be neatly grouped on the left. it may not matter if it seems like they're calling middle America racist It'…

> I dispute your attempt to conflate protests against Trump's ban on entry with an indictment of middle America. You can refute all you want. I'm talking about real conversations I've had with real people. It looks like some Americans are hateful towards "hateful" Americans and it puts people on the defensive and pushes them away. EDIT: > you don't speak for the American people Right. That's not the message that peop…

I'm also talking about real conversations I've had with real people, from which I've drawn different conclusions than you. You seem to think (if I've read you right) that my ideas are derived from some academic political theory, which isn't the case.

There are lines being drawn and many decent people feel like they're being hated along with neo-nazis.

No doubt, but insofar as they choose not to acknowledge the existence of neo-nazis in the face of abundant evidence or the threat such neo-nazis pose towards people they don't like, then it's not surprising that people who feel threatened by neo-nazis are going to feel similarly annoyed with those who enable them.

To my mind, this is similar to someone in the Confederacy saying that slavery wasn't a big issue because they didn't personally own any slaves. While that would certainly make them less culpable than someone who did own slaves, declining to acknowledge the contentious nature of slavery isn't a neutral stance, but rather one of indifference to the plight of the enslaved.

Re: During WWII, U.S. Saw Italian-Americans as a Threat to Homeland Security

#200

Post by sctb »

paulddraper wrote: post #172
sctb wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13560351 .

Why? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Does removing it from its parent context make it better?

No, it does not. But such flagged comments lose their privilege of appearing high up in the thread.
Post reply on HN