迪士尼在逃国王    发表于  前天 22:25 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式 10 10
Isn't the United States an immigrant country? Why is it so resistant to immigrants now?
裴大侠    发表于  前天 22:26 | 显示全部楼层
Because Americans are beginning to realize that it is the same reason why the evaluation of the Li Tang Dynasty on the Chinese Internet began to flip

That is to say, the consequences of immigration, especially those who have not assimilated, can be catastrophic

First of all, our own perception is that on the Chinese Internet, the evaluation of the Han Dynasty and the Tang Dynasty, especially the evaluation of the Tang Dynasty, has begun to flip

In the past, we always felt like, wow, the Tang Dynasty was too great, too awesome, with thousands of states coming to court, the Heavenly Kingdom rising to power, and a prosperous era

Yes, but with the improvement of netizens' knowledge, they started to use magnifying glasses to study the Li Tang Dynasty, and gradually felt that it was a bit wrong

Where is the wrong place?

May I ask, when did the term 'two legged sheep' appear? When did it happen?

A: Five random Hua

B: Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms

The Five Barbarians were essentially the chaotic times caused by the downfall of the Han Dynasty, while the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms were the chaotic times caused by the downfall of the Tang Dynasty. Both the Han and Tang dynasties had the same problem

What is the answer?

The standard answer is B. You can go to Google or Baidu to see if it's correct

Did Wu Luanhua bring people into the pot to cook and eat? Yes, but it didn't say it was the Two Legged Sheep. The Two Legged Sheep actually appeared in the Five Dynasties

That is to say, at that time, the common people, who were livestock raised in captivity, would kill them to eat when needed, which was a very terrifying situation

Why is this happening?

All gifts of fate are priced secretly

The source lies in Wanbang Lai Chao

During the prosperous period of the Li Tang Dynasty, the expansion was rapid, so various chaotic Hu people and tribes were brought under the rule of the Li Tang Dynasty. At first, they were mainly used as mercenaries. Here is a reminder that the two powerful empires in the East and the West, Han and Rome, had similar problems, that is, they liked to hire barbarians as mercenaries for nothing. The end result of the East was the chaos of the Five Barbarians and the Ten Kingdoms of the Five Dynasties. In the West, the barbarian Germanic people directly destroyed the Western Roman Empire and took away the title of emperor, saying that only the monarch of the Holy Roman Empire could be called emperor. That's how it came about. Then, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, that is, the Eastern Roman Empire, the title of emperor was given to... After the establishment of the Russian Tsar, Germany's attack on Russia was a struggle for the throne of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. The emperor fought against the emperor, In the history of France, only Napoleon has seized the throne. Napoleon challenged the entire Europe and proclaimed himself emperor. If you declare yourself emperor, the entire empire will be at odds with you. If you have the ability, you can achieve unification. If you cannot achieve unification, you will fail.

The root of the Five Barbarians in the Han Dynasty can be traced back to the Three Kingdoms period. During the Three Kingdoms period, Cao Wei allowed a large number of Hu people to annex, including Qiang, Di, Xianbei, and Xiongnu. Cao Cao brought in many of them. After the decline of the Jin Eight Princes Rebellion, these Five Barbarians began to stir up trouble

That's the case with Han and Rome, and the same goes for the Li Tang Dynasty. After bringing in these barbarians, the Li Tang Dynasty did not truly assimilate them. The task of assimilating a nation requires several generations to complete, but the Li Tang Dynasty did not have so many generations and expanded too quickly, clearly causing indigestion, much like present-day America

Not long after, the An Lushan Rebellion broke out. Look at the military governors of the An Lushan Rebellion, such as Ge Shuhan, Pugu Huai'en, An Lushan, and Shi Siming, all of whom were names of the Hu people. Gao Xianzhi was from Goryeo, and in the Tang Dynasty, these people could be appointed as military governors, equivalent to provincial governors and governors of the United States

At that time, the number of Hu people and people from other countries in the Tang Dynasty reached an unprecedented level

so what? The An Lushan Rebellion was the first wave, and by the end of the Tang Dynasty, with the fragmentation of fiefdoms, it was the second wave. Finally, the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms were the third wave

This intensity is getting stronger every time, and ultimately it will lead to complete separatism

Then there are the two legged sheep

This is how incomplete assimilation of immigrants can lead to almost catastrophic outcomes

There are always two perspectives on immigration

One is mainstream and assimilation

Another option is the color palette

The latter refers to coexistence, where immigrants of different ethnicities maintain their own characteristics and jointly form a country

Representative countries include: Canada

The former emphasizes mainstream culture, and immigrants need to integrate into mainstream culture, identify with mainstream values, and represent countries such as the United States in the past

This is about the United States in the past, because in the past 20 years, the United States has been constantly turning left, which has led to immigrant attitudes approaching those of Canada

After Trump, the United States began to awaken, shifting from getting closer to Canada to becoming increasingly distant from it

This can be seen very clearly

What led to the awakening of Americans?

It's simple, this Indian contribution is indispensable

Of course, there are also contributions from black people and Muslims, but mainly from Indians

Black people are the first wave of the black civil rights movement that began in the second half of the last century

Then came the second wave after 9/11, and Indians were the third wave

Americans suddenly realized that these three groups are difficult to assimilate. Black people are mainly based on their skin color, which is not easily bleached and needs to be mixed for at least two generations. Muslims are mainly different in religious beliefs, while Indians have both

Previously, Americans believed that immigrants were mainly Mexican and Chinese

But Mexicans have a Catholic faith and a branch of Christianity, while Chinese people do not have such strong religious beliefs. Moreover, after a generation, there is not much difference in skin color, so it's actually okay

But once the Indians arrive, it's over. Indians have a very devout religious belief, which is Hinduism. Buddhism and Islam cannot do with Hinduism in South Asia, let alone Christianity. Moreover, Indians have dark skin color, which is a problem of skin color. What's more, Indians have the cunning left over from the colonial era. They can read people's words and take advantage of loopholes in the system, engage in nepotism, and quickly occupy a company. What's even more dangerous is that they don't pay attention to hygiene and defecate everywhere, which is equivalent to consolidating the shortcomings of all other races. They also attach an ultimate buff to defecate everywhere. This kind of behavior is probably unbearable for any race

At first glance, the United States has completely collapsed. My immigration was to attract talented individuals to my side

It's better now that the truly outstanding people don't come, only the worst immigrants come. They have no appearance, no knowledge, no culture, and don't even have the most basic hygiene habits. Can you bear it?

And it's very interesting

Didn't it say earlier? During the An Lushan Rebellion, many Hu people were military governors, equivalent to the current provincial governors in China. The United States was a governor, and if it was a national department, it was a minister. The ministerial level was equivalent to a provincial governor, because the department was a national level administrative organ, one level higher than the province and one level lower than the national leaders

Can you guess if there are Indian leaders at the provincial, ministerial, and state levels in the United States?

hehe
苦也    发表于  前天 22:36 | 显示全部楼层
Because the essence of Maga is white supremacy, under the guise of opposing illegal immigration, it actually opposes legal immigration, and now it is becoming less and less pretentious, including but not limited to: canceling the right to citizenship upon birth, completely blocking immigration processing for a period of time, ICE only arresting old Mexico who does manual labor in California, and those in Texas and Florida who are more popular are not being arrested, right? Now, in the primary election for the mayor of New York City, there is a direct threat to cancel the legal status of an Indian Muslim and repatriate the previously publicized "lighthouse", where every member can be sent back by the Maga boomerang
Sadie    发表于  前天 22:37 | 显示全部楼层
After World War II, white people accounted for over 90% of the population in the United States. Now, white people make up 57%. If we continue to immigrate, the main ethnic group in the United States will become a minority. If I were white, I would definitely support Trump, but I am Chinese, so I make jokes. Seeing the increasing number of black people in China and so many black sons in law in Guangzhou, I couldn't laugh at once. And Changsha, my dear
海洋之歌    发表于  前天 22:37 | 显示全部楼层
Who exactly is anti immigration in the United States? It needs to be clarified that the United States recently welcomed a group of Boer immigrants from South Africa in a high-profile manner

Trump's base plate is MAGA Red Neck, they hate people of color, Latin people, and Islam. Trump's anti immigration stance is against these people, and as for white Christians, they are still welcomed
山园小梅    发表于  前天 22:37 | 显示全部楼层
Because grand narratives cannot summarize a country as a whole, people are different, and it is normal for there to be significant differences in immigration ideas within a country.

Even if you have a grand narrative, you should at least divide America into two groups: one is the capitalists waiting for cheap labor and cattle and horses; The other group is struggling on the survival line, consisting of country bumpkins who break through their defenses when they see old ink brushing dishes or picking fruits. Do you think these two groups of people have the same attitude towards immigration?
煮鱼    发表于  前天 22:37 | 显示全部楼层
Because you took jobs from locals.

Even if you don't look at the plan to amend the "Regulations on Permanent Residence of Foreigners" in China in the next 20 years, Bilibili's political district UP is basically expressing their opinions on the permanent residence draft. Weibo's hot search has been cursing for three days and nights until the government revokes the draft.

The attitude of the American people is the same.
吴长江    发表于  前天 22:39 | 显示全部楼层
Excerpted from Huntington, Samuel P.: Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, translated by Cheng Kexiong, Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House, 2010, pp. 30-35.

For most of American history, the majority of Americans were not friendly toward immigrants nor did they consider their country a "nation of immigrants." However, attitudes began to shift after the ban on large-scale immigration in 1924. This was evident in President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous 1938 remark criticizing the Daughters of the American Revolution: "Remember, always remember, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descendants of immigrants and revolutionists." President Kennedy quoted this line from Roosevelt in his posthumously published book A Nation of Immigrants. Scholars and journalists have consistently invoked this statement both before and after the book’s publication. Oscar Handlin, the renowned historian of American immigration, declared, "The immigrant is the American story." Robert Bellah, the prominent sociologist, echoed Roosevelt, stating: "Except for the Indians, all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants."

These claims contain a partial truth, but not the complete truth. Roosevelt was partially wrong in saying everyone is descended from "revolutionists," and entirely wrong in asserting that members of the Daughters of the American Revolution (at least by their family surnames) are descendants of "immigrants." Their ancestors were not immigrants but settlers—people who came to the New World in the 17th and 18th centuries to form one (or several) societies in a land that was not yet a nation of immigrants. The origins of this society of Anglo-Protestant settlers have shaped American culture, institutions, historical development, and identity more profoundly and persistently than any other factor.

There is a fundamental distinction between settlers and immigrants. Settlers leave an existing society, usually in groups, to establish a new community—a "city upon a hill"—in a new, often distant territory. They are driven by a collective sense of purpose and explicitly or implicitly adhere to a covenant or charter that forms the foundation of the community they build and defines their relationship with their homeland. In contrast, immigrants do not establish a new society but move from one society to another, typically as individuals or with their families, defining their ties to both their country of origin and their new home on a personal basis. In the 17th and 18th centuries, settlers came to North America because it was a blank slate—a land without established societies (apart from Native American tribes that could be killed or pushed westward). They arrived to build societies that reflected and reinforced the culture and values they brought from their homeland. Later, immigrants came to join the societies already established by the settlers. Unlike settlers, immigrants and their children experienced "culture shock" as they attempted to absorb a culture vastly different from their own. The settlers created America first; immigrants then came to America.

Americans commonly refer to those who won independence and framed the Constitution in the 1770s and 1780s as the "Founding Fathers." Yet there must first be pioneering settlers before there can be "Founding Fathers." The history of American society does not begin in 1775, 1776, or 1787, but with the first groups of settlers in 1607, 1620, and 1630. It was during this intervening century and a half that the Anglo-American Protestant society and culture were established, and the events of the 1770s and 1780s were rooted in and products of this society and culture.

The men who created independent America clearly recognized the distinction between settlers and immigrants. As John Higham noted, prior to the Revolution, English and Dutch colonists "thought of themselves as founders, settlers, or pioneers—the shapers of colonial societies—not as immigrants. The polity, language, work and life patterns, and many customs were theirs, and immigrants had to adapt to them." The term "immigrant" entered the English language in the United States in the 1780s to refer to newcomers, distinguishing them from the earlier settlers.

America’s core culture has always been, and remains today, primarily the culture of the settlers who founded American society in the 17th and 18th centuries. The key components of this culture include Christianity, Protestant values and ethics, the work ethic, the English language, British legal and judicial traditions and the tradition of limiting governmental power, and European literary, artistic, philosophical, and musical traditions. Upon this cultural foundation, the settlers developed the "American Creed" in the 18th and 19th centuries, with principles of liberty, equality, individualism, representative government, and private property. Generations of subsequent immigrants were assimilated into this culture, contributing to and modifying it but never fundamentally altering it. This is because, at least until the late 20th century, it was Anglo-Protestant culture—and the political freedom and economic opportunity it created—that attracted immigrants to America.

Thus, in its origins and enduring core, America was originally a colonial society, in the strict original sense of the term "colony"—a new society established by people settling in a distant land far from their homeland. The meaning of "colony" later shifted to denote a region and its indigenous population ruled by a foreign power. These two meanings of "colony" are entirely distinct.

The settlers who founded colonies exerted a decisive and lasting influence on the culture and institutions of those colonial societies. Historian John Porter noted that these people were privileged groups who, as "de facto owners," had the "greatest say" in the subsequent development of the society. Cultural geographer Wilbur Zelinsky termed this phenomenon the "Doctrine of First Effective Settlement": in a new territory, "the first group to establish a viable, self-perpetuating society imparts its characteristics to the region’s subsequent social and cultural geography, regardless of the size of the initial settlement... In terms of lasting impact, the activities of the original settlers—even if only a few hundred or dozens of people—may be far more significant for the cultural geography of the area than the contributions of tens of thousands of new immigrants generations later."

The earliest settlers brought with them their own culture and institutions, which persisted in the new region even as they changed in their homeland. Ronald Syme observed of Roman colonists in ancient Spain: "A new country is not entirely new in all respects. Over a long period afterward, one can observe the phenomenon where colonists preserve living habits or languages that are no longer prevalent in their homeland. Spanish and French both derive from Latin, but Spanish can trace back to an older form of Latin than French. The Romans in Spain (it seems) prided themselves on their loyalty to ancient Roman traditions. On the other hand, their brilliant achievements demonstrate that they were enthusiastic, ambitious, and innovative." Tocqueville expressed a similar sentiment about Quebec:

The true face of a government can be most clearly evaluated in its overseas colonies, where its characteristics are magnified and made more evident. When I wish to study the merits and faults of Louis XIV, I must go to Canada, where I can observe his flaws as if through a microscope. We contemporary French are received everywhere there... as they say, as children of old France. I find this description inappropriate. Old France is in Canada; our France is new.

In America, David Hackett Fischer argued in his scholarly magnum opus that the settlers who came from Britain to America in the 17th and 18th centuries can be divided into four major groups based on their region of origin in England, socioeconomic status, church affiliation, and time of settlement. Yet all spoke English, were Protestant, adhered to British legal traditions, and cherished English liberties. This culture and its four subcultures have persisted in America. Fischer stated: "Culturally, most Americans, regardless of their ancestry, are descendants of the British... In today’s voluntaristic American society, the legacy of the four folkways of the early English settlers remains the most powerful determining factor." Wisconsin historian Rogers Hollingsworth echoed this view: "The most important fact to remember when studying political change in America is that America is the product of a settler society." The way of life of the original English settlers "evolved into an entire society" and "gave rise to the dominant political culture, political institutions, language, work and residential patterns, and many customs to which later immigrants had to adapt."

Like settlers elsewhere, the first settlers to arrive in the land that would become America were not representative of the entire population of their homeland but came from specific segments of it. They left their homes to settle far away because they were oppressed in their native land and saw opportunities in a new place. Europeans who settled in North America, South America, South Africa, and the South Pacific brought with them the ideas and ideologies of their respective social classes, including feudalism, liberalism, and working-class socialism. However, in the new lands, lacking the class antagonisms required for European class consciousness, these ideas evolved into nationalism in the new societies. Settler societies lacked the dynamic forces for change present in the original complex societies and thus preserved the institutions and changes of the parent society.

Settler societies are newly founded societies with a clear starting point in time and place. As such, their founders felt the need to define their institutions and formulate their development plans in the form of charters, agreements, and statutes. The first Greek code of laws was not created in Greece itself but in a Greek colony founded in Sicily in the 7th century BCE. The earliest systematic legal codes in the English-speaking world were formulated in Virginia (1606), Bermuda (incorporated into Virginia’s public laws in Chapter 3, 1612), Plymouth (1636), and Massachusetts Bay (1648). The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, adopted in 1638 by citizens of Hartford and surrounding towns, was "the first written constitution of modern democracy." Settler societies tend to be explicitly planned societies, with plans incorporating the experiences, values, and aspirations of their founders.

The process by which settlers from Britain and several other Northern European countries established new societies in the New World was repeated two and a half centuries later, as Americans moved west in groups to establish new frontier settlements. Settlement was central not only to the creation of America but also to its development until the late 19th century. Frederick Jackson Turner stated in 1892: "Up to our own day American history has been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the Great West." He noted: "Up to and including 1880, the nation had a frontier of settlement, but now the unsettled area has been broken into by isolated bodies of settlement, and there can hardly be said to be a frontier line." Unlike Canada, Australia, or Russia, America’s frontier lacked effective government governance at the time. The first to arrive were individual hunters, prospectors, adventurers, and merchants, followed by settlers who established towns along waterways and later along planned railroads. There was both settlement and population movement, with people constantly moving westward.

In 1790, America’s population (excluding Native Americans) totaled 3.929 million, of whom 698,000 were slaves and not considered members of American society. Among whites, 60% were English, and together with people from other parts of Britain, Britons accounted for 80%. The remaining whites were primarily Germans and Dutch. Religiously, 98% were Protestant. Excluding blacks, America was at that time a highly homogeneous society in terms of ethnicity, national origin, and religion. John Jay once said: "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

From 1820 to 2000, approximately 66 million immigrants came to America, making it ethnically and religiously diverse. Yet the population growth brought by immigrants was only slightly higher than the population growth of settlers and their slaves in the 17th and 18th centuries. Before the large-scale influx of immigrants, America experienced an unprecedented population explosion in the late 18th century, with an exceptionally high birth rate and a large proportion of children in the northern states reaching adulthood. In 1790, America’s birth rate was approximately 55 per thousand, compared to 35 per thousand in European countries at the time. American women married four to five years earlier on average than European women. The average fertility rate for American women was about 7.7 children per woman in 1790 and 7.0 in 1800—far exceeding the 2.1 children needed to maintain population stability. Fertility rates remained above 6.0 until the 1840s and did not drop to 3.0 until the start of the Great Depression in the 1930s. America’s total population increased by 35% from 1790 to 1800, 36% from 1800 to 1810, and 82% from 1800 to 1820. During this period, Europe was engulfed in the Napoleonic Wars, and immigration to America was minimal. Four-fifths of this population growth came from natural increase—a phenomenon one congressman described as the "American multiplication table." Demographer Campbell Gibson concluded after careful analysis that in 1990, 49% of the American population was descended from the original settlers and blacks of 1790, and 51% from immigrants arriving after 1790. America’s population in 1990 was 249 million; without immigration, it would have been 122 million. In short, by the end of the 20th century, roughly half of America’s population was descended from early settlers and slaves, and half from immigrants who joined the society created by the settlers.

In addition to immigrants and descendants of settlers, slaves, and immigrants, contemporary Americans include descendants of peoples conquered by the United States. These include Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians, and descendants of Mexicans originally living in Texas and parts of the Southwest seized from Mexico in the mid-19th century. Native Americans and Puerto Ricans are distinctive in that they are within the United States but not fully equivalent to ordinary Americans, due to arrangements such as reservations, tribal self-governance, and Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but do not pay federal taxes, do not vote in national elections, and use Spanish (not English) for official purposes.

Large-scale immigration has been an intermittent phenomenon in American life. Before the 1830s, immigration numbers and proportions were small; they then rose before declining in the 1850s. There was a sharp increase in the 1880s, followed by a decrease in the 1890s. Immigration numbers were high in the decade before World War I but dropped drastically after the 1924 Immigration Act, remaining low thereafter. A new wave of immigration emerged after the 1965 Immigration Act. During these years, immigrants played an important role in America’s development, some out of proportion to their share of the population. Yet from 1820 to 2000, foreign-born individuals averaged only slightly more than 10% of the total population. Describing America as a "nation of immigrants" exaggerates a partial truth into a misleading fallacy and ignores the fundamental fact that America originated as a settler society.
田文海    发表于  前天 22:40 | 显示全部楼层
The Roots of America’s Territorial History: Conquest, Displacement, and Unsettled Legacies

The historical reality is impossible to ignore: the eastern states of the United States were acquired through the conquest of Indigenous peoples, while the western states came from the invasion of Mexico. Indigenous populations were nearly eradicated, with the few remaining confined mostly to reservations—rendered politically and demographically marginalized, no longer seen as a threat.

The critical issue, however, lies in Mexico’s survival as a sovereign nation. Unlike Indigenous communities, Mexico was never fully subjugated, and today, countless Mexican Americans and recent migrants are returning to ancestral lands in California, Texas, and other former Mexican territories. This is not merely a story of the U.S. rejecting immigration; it is a story of colonial settler groups that migrated to North America displacing Indigenous peoples and attempting to rewrite history—erasing the violence of conquest and burying the truth of dispossession.

These settlers did not arrive as immigrants seeking to join an existing society; they came as conquerors, seizing land through force, breaking treaties, and suppressing Indigenous resistance. Their goal was not integration but domination: to replace Indigenous cultures and governance with their own, framing their actions as “manifest destiny” rather than theft. Today, this legacy persists in the tension between descendants of settlers and those whose lands were taken—whether Indigenous peoples confined to reservations or Mexican communities reclaiming ties to territories lost in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

The narrative of the U.S. as a “nation of immigrants” obscures this foundational violence. It conflates the experience of 19th and 20th-century immigrants—who arrived in a already-established settler state—with the colonial project of dispossession that created that state in the first place. The true conflict is not between “Americans” and “immigrants,” but between the settler society that built its identity on erasing Indigenous and Mexican claims to the land, and those who refuse to let that history be forgotten.

For Mexican communities in the American Southwest, returning to lands once part of Mexico is not immigration—it is a homecoming to territories stolen through war and coercion. For Indigenous peoples, the reservations they inhabit are not “homelands” but remnants of a continent they once stewarded. The U.S. does not face a crisis of “immigration”; it faces a crisis of historical accountability—a refusal to confront how its territorial expansion was built on the displacement and near-destruction of other peoples.

To frame this as a debate about immigration policy is to miss the point entirely. It is a struggle over who gets to define the past—and who gets to claim the future—in a land where the settler myth of “empty” territory has long masked the violence of its creation. Mexico’s continued existence, and the persistence of Indigenous and Mexican communities in reclaiming their heritage, ensures that this history cannot be fully buried. The question is not whether the U.S. will accept immigrants, but whether it will ever acknowledge the costs of its colonial origins.
涵江水上乐园    发表于  前天 22:43 | 显示全部楼层
The "Bus Logic" of Immigration Attitudes: Self-Interest and Human Nature

You’ve finally squeezed onto a crowded bus early in the morning—don’t you secretly wish that from your stop onward, no new passengers are allowed to board, and only people get off?

The urge to “weld the bus doors shut” once you’re on board is a shared dark side of human nature, no need to hide it.

Only a small number of people who directly benefit from immigration are able to avoid rejecting it.
12下一页
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Archiver|手机版| 关于我们

Copyright © 2001-2025, 公路边.    Powered by 公路边 |网站地图

GMT+8, 2025-12-22 12:27 , Processed in 0.135459 second(s), 28 queries .