In a recent column, in my local paper here, in
Denver, Colorado, USA, we have a space in the newspaper for the “people” called Colorado Voices. This “supported” space gives the paper the ability to say that it is “fair and balance,” in presenting all commentary in regards to the opposition and their “ideas.”
However, and there is a however, The Denver Post, the local paper, I speak of, and of our two daily papers, the more liberal has situated the Colorado Voices guest author in a “no win” situation. The author, Bellie Louden (a deputy sheriff and an army veteran) and, in case you are interested, a black American (raised inOklahoma), has touted the argument once more, “What part of the illegal do you not understand?” And, considering her background (admittedly on my part cultivating a stereotype) for the respect of the “chain-of-command,” “rigidity to regulations,” and “rule-of-law” I am not surprised.
With that said her column “I’m a Racist?” (see link here) punctuates the political discourse in this country of late—emotional hyperbole and ad hominem attacks if one does not like what a person has to say—you call them a name. This type of discourse, naturally, does a disservice and continually recreate the environment of a “cognitive dissonant” in America. A society of polarization, animosity, and vitriol deconstructs the middle for compromise and rationality. Both side of the immigration are in the extreme of emotionalism. The environs of such a culture create polarization, vehemence, and a place where the word of “compromise” is lambasted and chastised—and ad hominem attacked for the mere suggestion.
Finding the middle (or near middle) has been this country forte, and at times, the extremes has also been exercised as well. Nevertheless, what my local paper did (most cleverly) has subverted the deputy sheriff’s argument, because of their previously editorial commentaries regarding the immigration issue. Her assertion is this: let’s get back to the place of “rational,” or at the least, “presented rational” to come across as common sense. Simply, “the law has been broken by golly and that is the end of the argument. Period.” In essence, the moment the illegal alien, or undocumented worker, or whatever political correct term is correct, crossed the border illegally they are a criminal.
As common sense as that view is, it ignores the history of immigration of the illegal alien. To be sure, the history of this country was built on “undocumented worker.” One did not have to such documentation during the expansion of this country (before Ellis Island).
Moreover, Louden is mistaken, slavery did not begin the process of “oppression” as inferred by the author, it began when one group determines it is “superior” to another group and not equal in status. This is not defined by race, creed, or color for that matter, it is decided by the dominate society’s perception view of reality. Both sides are staking a claim to a position that is indefensible—both sides are racist (see the recent Leonard Pitts, Jr. see link here ) to some degree, even within the same racial category. Take note this is not an indictment but a recapitulation of cultural reality. This is also goes to prove a point, reiterated by anthropologists, who have been stating for a quite, race is an arbitrary and defined by one’s own cultural ideals and core beliefs…..
(To be continued…)
Comments