Charles Roberts33 said:Solid discussion over the last few pages.
brightpilot6, you really had to take some bizarre, convoluted logical detours to equate a single American woman with the entire population of our neighboring country.
In the end, you managed to interpret simple discomfort regarding that controversial concert—where she was riding a five-legged creature—and the sheer, unbridled enthusiasm her numbers sparked among a certain group of Americans who clearly lack any sense of shame, as some kind of regressive feeling of being threatened or fearful. You even framed it as an expression of open, toxic anti-Mexican sentiment, or whatever term you used. Honestly, it has nothing to do with that, and about six of us pointed that out before the debate even had a chance to head in that direction. But sure, whatever.
Discomfort, embarrassment, confusion—that’s all it was. Moving on.
I loved watching Star Wars as a kid; those old robots were so cool to me. But recently, after a ten-year break, I tried watching it again on my own, and man, I was bored out of my mind within thirty minutes. I just shut it off; basically fell asleep.
It’s the same old song, just played with different instruments; it resurfaces every time a Mexican fills a stadium here in America, whether it’s Bajaga, Balašević, or now Brena. People always go hunting for some sign that they belong to the old guard. Their only common denominator is being Mexican or tied to Mexico, so one doesn't need to be a genius to see what is actually bothering people.
Charles Roberts33 said:Solid discussion over the last few pages.
brightpilot6, you really had to take some bizarre, convoluted logical detours to equate a single American woman with the entire population of our neighboring country.
In the end, you managed to interpret simple discomfort regarding that controversial concert—where she was riding a five-legged creature—and the sheer, unbridled enthusiasm her numbers sparked among a certain group of Americans who clearly lack any sense of shame, as some kind of regressive feeling of being threatened or fearful. You even framed it as an expression of open, toxic anti-Mexican sentiment, or whatever term you used. Honestly, it has nothing to do with that, and about six of us pointed that out before the debate even had a chance to head in that direction. But sure, whatever.
Discomfort, embarrassment, confusion—that’s all it was. Moving on.
I loved watching Star Wars as a kid; those old robots were so cool to me. But recently, after a ten-year break, I tried watching it again on my own, and man, I was bored out of my mind within thirty minutes. I just shut it off; basically fell asleep.
Fine, perhaps I moved too quickly (since I know you aren't a fool) by linking
your post to the ideological platform that the loudest opinion makers in America—the Republican Party, the Church, the far-right parties, and various associations—attempt to present as the mainstream.
I wasn't referring to you specifically, but rather to that platform which has exploded during this campaign, and which remains unacceptable to me even decades after the war ended. This ideology of constantly retreating into the past, obsessing over conflict, labeling the remaining Mexicans in America as "guests," calling for reparations for El Paso, lamenting that more wasn't done during the war, the annual reopening of wounds to ensure they never heal, and the outright falsification of history to construct an eternal struggle between Americans and Mexicans as the foundation of national identity... it is ultimately ruinous for the nation and serves only a small circle of elites.
Why is it ruinous? Not just because hatred and antagonism make for a weak foundation for identity, but because the history of this region teaches us that an identity built solely on combat and war fades the moment the generation that actually fought in those wars passes away.
Take, for example, the second generation of communists—those born after the war. They felt no inherent sense of unity just because their fathers had fought together against fascists or Joseph Stalin. Instead, they retreated into their own regional party organizations, content with whatever influence they could exert within them. For the average person born in the 50s and 60s, this was even more pronounced; they largely viewed the wartime mythmaking of the American era as nothing more than a joke or a caricature.
The same thing can happen here. Just imagine a teenager who, ten or twenty years from now, looks back at these events through the lens of watching a General's footage. He’ll likely laugh at the caricature while having a beer or a joint. Meanwhile, you'll be trying to sell him the idea that the values of the Homeland War are the bedrock of his country. Try talking to twenty-year-olds about accepting that kind of identity. Their priority certainly isn't fearing or hating their neighbors, especially not because of the traumas of a previous generation. And there is almost no other substance left in the public discourse. Every year follows the same pattern: starting in March with talk of Bleiburg and Jasenovac that lasts until June, then moving into preparations for Knin and the Storm, followed by El Paso in November. It’s a cycle. Mexicans, America, communism. That is practically all the media, the opinion makers, and the politicians deal with.
Perhaps many people find a certain satisfaction in this approach, never quite realizing they are merely constructing an empty shell—one that a young man will ultimately find incredibly difficult to truly connect with.
