So what else is new?
Readers this is a comment I received in a private e-mail from Matt Rodrigue, apparently connected with Temple University (listed here in the graduate department in history). Mr. Rodrigue sent a series of comments to articles, especially on the Somali issue in Lewiston, ME, in which he used so much profanity (lots of f-bombs) towards us and other readers, that I asked him to take out the profanity and I would post his arguments.
I guess this is what he wants to say, sans foul language. Since apparently highly educated graduate students at Temple University haven’t learned about paragraphs yet, I’m putting in bold some of the highlights of Mr. Rodrigue’s arguments to help make this comment-worth-noting easier to read.
First off please don’t pretend that you have a dignified position to defend here, ok? Don’t you think your many disclaimers about how un-racist, un-xenophobic, and un-intolerant [I don’t know where I posted such disclaimers?—Ann] you are kind of belie your wonderfully presented prose? I remember finishing my thesis for a master’s in US history and wondering just how my topic might be perceived as controversial. But, I certainly knew I wasn’t being blatantly racist or intolerant (or ignorant), so there was of course no reason to state such considerations in plain english anywhere in the forward or anything. Sure, some of your critics might be your run-of-the-mill bleeding heart liberals who only get their news from MSNBC and Jon Stewart. However, many of those people that call you racist lob such epithets your way because they understand that you’re angry and hateful toward immigrants and the notion of immigration out of sheer emotion. You then forcefully connect your irrational fears to tenuous economic, social, and cultural arguments with complete disregard to the ways in which your factually inaccurate statements damage this country. The problem is, people like you are afraid of critiquing your own country! Stop blaming other skin colors for your country’s crappy ideas! [I guess this is not Mr. Rodrigue’s country—Ann] Don’t worry about any edits or reposts (I mean, after all, you’re no New Yorker, eh?), just try spending a day reading actual scholarly work that addresses the subjects you treat so haphazardly and immaturely. Let’s put it this way: If I presented arguments like yours in an academic setting, I would have been failed out of my graduate program. Doesn’t that tell you something? Or are you one of those people that think all academics (historians, sociologists, and political scientists in particular) are part of some vast liberal conspiracy meant to “put those darned Mexicans” before the good ole ‘Mericans? Note that I used the word “darn,” and not damn… Point is, what you’re doing, whether you believe in it or not (and yeh, I truly think you believe in what you’re saying) is a useless task because it’s based on innumerable false assumptions.
Here’s a start, in case you decide to seek actual truth. Try thinking of a product. It could be a crop, a piece of textile, oil, etc. Now think of which countries have been the most energetic in centralizing and controlling such resources and products in, say, the last 500 years (if you answered any of the countries of Europe and the US, you’re correct!) Now think of all of the different, yet equally intense, ways in which such countries (represented by their businesses) have sought, and obtained such goods. Now you can start to understand that, in order to take control of goods and resources in other countries, the people standing in the way of those goods must either 1. get out of the way 2. be hired as cheap laborers (or slaves) in the extraction process, or 3. die. Ok, I hope you’re still with me (its hard condensing 500 years of imperialism into one paragraph [now I get why you guys choose to conduct your much crappier form of scholarship!]). So during this long (very long, as in 15th century until now) and ever-changing process of consuming the bounty of other countries, people tend to get displaced. First, they’re kicked off their land and forced to move into urban areas. Or sometimes they’re pushed further back into unpeopled countryside. But usually the lack of available means of production, or the lack of well-paid labor, or some other combination of forces leads to a painful realization on the part of these people that in order to live; indeed in order to provide for their families, they have to leave their home and look for pay somewhere else. Of course, while this is going on, the host government in these “backward” countries often make out very well doing what the US tells them to do. And that’s why we have Somali peoples in Lewiston, ME and “illegal” Mexicans in our southern border regions. And don’t think we’re the only country receiving new peoples. Mexico has seen a considerable increase in immigrants from southern Latin American countries like Guatemala (since about 1994; it rhymes with NAFTA) because of such predatory government/business practices. I know this is all very hard to understand, but it helps to think of politics, economics, and culture from outside the American perspective. Because as much as you don’t want to hear it, and as Carly Simon said once, “this song ain’t about you.” I hope in this present e-mail I’ve presented myself in a more presentable manner. [Yes, thank you, we really appreciated hearing your views without the foul language—now do I get my Mexican $4—Ann]
Presently yours,
Matt Rodrigue
Ps: I agree, it’s not all doom and gloom. Sometimes, like in the case of Cuba for example, two countries develop such strong and fascinating cultural ties that the interchange of peoples becomes a reality. And yeh, there’s truth to the idea that slighted Europeans came to the US in search of a better life. I mean, whether they got that better life is up for debate…