Maybe it’s better this way, with no more fig leaves and blushing, and the GOP giving lip service to not being racist when the fact is everybody knows who’s who and what’s what. Marjorie Taylor Greene has taken up the mantle of George Wallace. He must be beaming at her from the beyond, along with the Jewish space lasers. Maybe she can’t tell the difference. In all events,
“A nascent ‘America First Caucus’ in Congress linked to Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) has been distributing materials calling for a ‘common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions’ and a return to architectural style that ‘befits the progeny of European architecture.’ Reps. Barry Moore (R-Ala.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) have also agreed to join the group,” Punchbowl News reported Friday, citing an email invitation it obtained.
I have to admit to confusion over the reference to architecture. Is this some put down of the tradition of Spanish stucco, Mexican tiles, interior courtyards and Moorish arches that pervade architecture in Mexico and throughout the American southwest, brought by the Spanish conquistadores? Because if that is the case, Greene is even whackier than I would have thought possible.
Say what you will about the Catholic church, but they knew a good thing when they saw it, and they built remarkable missions all throughout California and the western United States based on Spanish design. Universities also picked up on this great look, not to mention governmental offices. Is that Greene’s beef?
In all events, the architectural reference may be vague but the racism plays out loud and clear.
“We’ve been covering Congress for a long time, and this is some of the most nakedly nativist rhetoric we’ve ever seen,” Punchbowl noted.
“America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” the group argued. “History has shown that societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse into a country, particularly without institutional support for assimilation and an expansive welfare state to bail them out should they fail to contribute positively to the country.”
The “imported en masse” is the tell here. That’s the talking point. This is Trump’s caravan from the south, redux. It looks like once again, racism is the cracked foundation upon which the stability of the nation rests. What’s new is old and what’s old is new.
Did no-one bother to tell her that California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, etc were simply taken by force of arms from Mexico?
That’s part of the comedy, with Paul Gosar of Arizona being in on this. Like the rest of Arizona doesn’t know where it is and its history?
“History has shown that societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse into a country, particularly without institutional support for assimilation and an expansive welfare state to bail them out should they fail to contribute positively to the country.”
Yep.just as those European immigrant invaders failed to assimilate to the existing culture and destroyed a vibrant civilization……but they won’t mention that.
Yeah, you don’t want to talk about that, Manifest Destiny, any of that.
Wasn’t that the excuse to break the treaty with the Lakota and establish the Dakotas? If I recall, it was ‘manifest destiny’ that all that gold should belong to the WASPs
There is a well-established link between immigration-related ethnic diversity and less social trust. However, MTG’s statement deliberately misrepresents the parameters of that link. In fact, none of her qualifiers are a factor in the link, and all of them were added to the basic link by her ilk to promote white supremacy. The link itself is a very basic in-group/out-group phenomenon. For example, in some American rural areas there is a lack of trust between the “town people” and the “country people.” Or ask any Californian what living, or even just passing though in Louisiana is like.
The various indigenous native first nation groups might have a view on ‘imported en masse’ talking points.
And the racism of immigrants.
Some things never change. When the Irish started coming here in droves, they were called “white n****rs” and there were signs in the windows “No Irish Need Apply” and all that. And they were northern European. But the point is, it doesn’t matter who “the other” is, it’s the fact that they’re “the other.” The Italians had the same mess, it’s all over Italian-American history.
Ursula, I read this story last night but really didn’t have the time to comment on one particular point before I had to start getting ready for work but,
ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE CONSTANT DENIGRATION OF GEORGE WALLACE!!!!!!!
I am FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF IT. The man APOLOGIZED for his racist actions and behavior but, for some reason, it seems that certain people simply refuse to accept THAT REALITY. No, they prefer to keep Wallace stuck in a very short period of his political life and it was a behavior that was blatant political opportunism (if anyone bothered to do the least bit of research into Wallace’s political career). Wallace got TROUNCED in his first run for governor in 1958; he accepted the endorsement of the NAACP while his opponent ran with the FULL endorsement of the KKK. Because of that loss, he vowed (using some very unfortunate language) that would never happen again and he won the governor’s race in 1962.
In 1968, he did run for President as a third-party candidate and, while there was a fair deal of racism and pro-segregatonism in his party’s (American Independent) platform, Richard Nixon didn’t exactly veer all that far from Wallace’s playbook. (Go back and look at the GOP’s “law and order” platform from 1968 and see if you don’t happen to see some major racist dog whistles in it.)
Then, in 1972, while campaigning for the Democratic nomination, he was shot and would remain paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life as a result. And his very first non-family visitor? Shirley Chisholm, the Black New York member of Congress who was also running for the Democratic nomination. Chisholm’s visit was the prompt that led to Wallace’s rehabilitation which culminated by a FORMAL apology for his “segregation now” speech and he would go on, in his final term as governor in the 1980s, to appoint more Blacks to state offices than all previous governors had done since the end of Reconstruction (he would also be the first governor of Alabama to have two Black cabinet officials at the same time). Wallace won that race BECAUSE OF BLACK VOTERS. The 1982 race was the first time that a GOP candidate (Emory Folmar) managed to win more than 35% of the popular vote for Governor since 1874 and it was also the first time that a slight majority of white voters broke for the GOP over the Democrats (many analysts believed that Folmar would win the race and become the first GOP Governor since 1872; if Blacks hadn’t forgiven Wallace, that very well could’ve happened). In 1986, white voters would largely abandon the Democratic Party and begin electing GOPers to the Governor’s Mansion (although there was a lot more in play in that race).
But, the ultimate in Wallace’s rehabilitation came at his funeral and memorial service. The funeral was attended by prominent Black leaders (who’d been INVITED BY THE FAMILY) and the memorial service featured a number of Black speakers who spoke FAVORABLY of Wallace, especially recognizing his apology for his earlier behavior.
Of course, again, it seems like a mere 15-year stretch of his life is going to haunt Wallace’s legacy forever because too many simply refuse to accept that people CAN change because it doesn’t fit their impression. Donald Trump is too old to ever have his image rehabilitated (of course, Trump feels that “apologies” are for the weak) and most of the current Trump wannabes are probably going to be spending the rest of their lives trying to rehabilitate their images once they finally realize that Trump image won’t really help them because, for better or worse, they simply do NOT have Trump’s charisma.
Do you have a link to Wallace’s biography? I have been unable to confirm much of what you have said about Wallace. The claim to be against segregation, made during his last presidential bid, is what smacks of political opportunism. His “very unfortunate language” is a highly sanitized way of putting it.
To be fair, fifteen years is a solid portion of one’s adult life. Robert Byrd’s renunciation of his former views seem far more genuine than anything Wallace ever said.
I think even G. Wallace would have backed away from Marjorie Kookie-pants and not just because she’s bat-sh*t crazy.