I’ll just say up-front that I’m not always willing to go all the way with Brownfemipower. I read her posts and I’m nodding along and, inevitably, there comes a point where I say, “Yep, here’s where I get off. I was willing to follow you to this point, but now we must part ways.”
So, in the post I’m about to point you to, I’ll just say that it’s right about where she starts talking about how immigrants who want to find a way to stay in the country legally are not critical of just what they’re trying to assimilate into–that’s where I’m not sure I can go with her.
I want to say that upfront because I don’t want us to get distracted by it.
Often, I think, when we read radical thinkers, we search for that place where our path diverges from theirs and we argue over the split. Why have they gone that way when I want to go this way?
That kind of thinking is useful for situating yourself in your own mind.
It is utterly useless when actually reading and considering radical thinkers’ points and discussing them. I’m not interested in where we all think radicals have gone wrong.
I’m interested in what they can show us about the parts of the journey we are on together.
And America, that’swhat I think Brownfemipower is so brilliant about.
Almost nobody recognized or talked about the reason why these organizations gained such instant popularity. In a post 9-11 world, they had both taken the time to restructure their campaigns significantly–choosing to focus on the “desperate” situation at the border. The “desperate” situation being, of course, that thousands of Mexicans were crossing through unprotected parts of the border every year–thousands of Mexicans that could really be terrorists. The false desperation of the war on terror leaked into the border, creating a false desperation on the border that has justified everything from increased violence by border patrol agentsagainst border crossers and the building of our own wall.
You think she’s full of shit?
Look at this, talking about making it illegal to transport undocumented immigrants across the Tennessee state line:
An amendment filed by Rep. Rob Briley, D-Nashville, may exclude some people who are transporting immigrants for religious purposes as a defense. Briley said a number of religious denominations participate in missionary work that might be prosecutable under the proposed law.
Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, said he thought that was a bad idea.
“Just curious, isn’t a jihad considered a religious purpose in some religions?” he asked, referring to the Arabic term used by some extremist Muslim and terrorist groups for “holy war.”
Do you see it? Do you see how right Brownfemipower is? My god, it makes me about have to take to my fainting couch in a swoon of “Holy shit.”
We’re not talking academics here. This is no theoretical linking of Mexicans to terrorists, no university mumbo-jumbo.
This is a real line that folks like Campfield are drawing and folks like Brownfemipower are trying to draw our attention to.
Folks are literally conflating the “war on terror” with our immigration problem; conflating a bunch of Mexicans (and other Latin American folks) who come here to work and keep our country running with terrorists who want to kill folks.
Ha, and well there you go. Just the other day Mack was all like “What purpose does it serve to continually bring up the very few illegal immigrants who drive drunk and kill people when talking about the immigration debate?”
Here’s the answer. If we’re going to conflate Mexicans with terrorists, it’s made easier if we can lump them all together in the category of “Folks who come here and kill us.”