Ilhan Omar controversy

[Kevin Seitzer]

I believe this is the complete transcript

https://www.patreon.com/posts/what-ilhan-omar-25142297

Thank you. Helps avoid distorted meaning behind layers and layers of other people's interpretations.

[The Feral Slasher]

Thank you. Helps avoid distorted meaning behind layers and layers of other people's interpretations.

For anyone interested It only takes a few minutes to read the whole thing, very worthwhile in my opinion.

[gcstomp]

looking at the full transcript of what Omar said, I do not take offense at what she said. She expresses a fleshed out pov with needed context that if pulling a partial sentence out could be ammo for ignorant, or those with an agenda, but this is not anything like what we experience every day with an openly hostile to dark skin racist heading the exec branch.

[B-Fly]

Another thought here, and maybe a bigger topic, but with so many people putting, for lack of a better term, a qualifier on their American heritage is it any wonder people question their allegiance? It's not just those with Jewish heritage. Perhaps if everyone stopped trying to qualify themselves and just say, "I'm an American." there might not be so many people questioning what someone is saying and what might be behind the statement.

I'm sure it wasn't your intent here, but I'm reading and re-reading this statement and it's bizarre to me on its face, so maybe you can clarify. Do you have to stop qualifying yourself as Christian to remove doubts others may have about your allegiance to the US?

[B-Fly]

I believe this is the complete transcript

https://www.patreon.com/posts/what-ilhan-omar-25142297

I'll join the chorus saying that it is definitely worth reading the complete transcript and assessing her words in that broader context.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I'm sure it wasn't your intent here, but I'm reading and re-reading this statement and it's bizarre to me on its face, so maybe you can clarify. Do you have to stop qualifying yourself as Christian to remove doubts others may have about your allegiance to the US?

There's an interesting subtext in your question, and really in this whole thread, that I think makes for an interesting discussion in and of itself: ought people to have allegiance to their country above allegiance to other people groups, ethnicities, causes, ideologies, etc.? And if so, or if not, what does that mean?

[DMT]

There's an interesting subtext in your question, and really in this whole thread, that I think makes for an interesting discussion in and of itself: ought people to have allegiance to their country above allegiance to other people groups, ethnicities, causes, ideologies, etc.? And if so, or if not, what does that mean?

To say yes we do seems like Black and White thinking to me. We all have multiple identities depending on the context of the moment (parent, spouse, employee, activist, etc) so why do we have to determine a heirarchy on our particular allegiances?

[onejayhawk]

There's an interesting subtext in your question, and really in this whole thread, that I think makes for an interesting discussion in and of itself: ought people to have allegiance to their country above allegiance to other people groups, ethnicities, causes, ideologies, etc.? And if so, or if not, what does that mean?

Another dimension is that the founders clearly believed that God's law superceded man's law. So did MLK.

J

[Kevin Seitzer]

Another dimension is that the founders clearly believed that God's law superceded man's law. So did MLK.

J

And do you think they were right? And if so, what implications does that have, for example, for how you view people from other countries, on issues of war, human rights, immigration, etc.?

[Kevin Seitzer]

To say yes we do seems like Black and White thinking to me. We all have multiple identities depending on the context of the moment (parent, spouse, employee, activist, etc) so why do we have to determine a heirarchy on our particular allegiances?

I don't think that country deserves allegiance above all else. I believe Germany in the 1930s shows the pitfalls of that thinking on a lot of fronts, not just for the soldiers, but also for scientists (e.g., Heisenberg working on the atomic bomb), churches, etc. But if you stand up and say that today in the United States, there are going to be a lot of people disagree with you vehemently. Just ask Colin Kaepernick. Or MLK, as 1J pointed out, if he weren't murdered for that.

I think this Omar controversy is really about whether Muslims can be trusted to be loyal to America above all else, and same for Jews. And I think that's the wrong question/premise to start with. But it is a very strongly held premise in our corporate life in America, and one that people disagree with in public at their peril. It is also usually assumed without being talked about.

[onejayhawk]

And do you think they were right? And if so, what implications does that have, for example, for how you view people from other countries, on issues of war, human rights, immigration, etc.?

Right or wrong, that is the foundation of the system.

J

[B-Fly]

There's an interesting subtext in your question, and really in this whole thread, that I think makes for an interesting discussion in and of itself: ought people to have allegiance to their country above allegiance to other people groups, ethnicities, causes, ideologies, etc.? And if so, or if not, what does that mean?

I think we probably need to define what we mean by "allegiance" to have a good conversation about this.

allegiance noun


1a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord



b(1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government
//I pledge allegiance to my country.

(2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides


2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause
//allegiance to a political party

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegiance

Can one simultaneously have definition 1b(1) or 1b(2) allegiance to the USA and definition 2 allegiance to an etnhic/identity group, or to a faith or a god, or to a political party or a cause? I think the answer is 'yes'. If the USA truly honors the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment (equal protection and due process), then one's definition 2 allegiances shouldn't come into conflict with one's definition 1b allegiance to the USA. And it certainly shouldn't matter whether you're a religious or racial or ethnic minority, versus a white Christian. The former should never be the basis for questioning your 1b allegiance to the USA.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I think we probably need to define what we mean by "allegiance" to have a good conversation about this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegiance

Can one simultaneously have definition 1b(1) or 1b(2) allegiance to the USA and definition 2 allegiance to an etnhic/identity group, or to a faith or a god, or to a political party or a cause? I think the answer is 'yes'. If the USA truly honors the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment (equal protection and due process), then one's definition 2 allegiances shouldn't come into conflict with one's definition 1b allegiance to the USA. And it certainly shouldn't matter whether you're a religious or racial or ethnic minority, versus a white Christian. The former should never be the basis for questioning your 1b allegiance to the USA.

So what does that mean for Walter Heisenberg when Germany asks him to build an atomic bomb? Or one might ask the same of the scientists recruited to the Manhattan Project, although that starts to hit a little closer to home.

I'll admit than when some U.S. court rules that a foreigner doesn't have constitutional rights because they aren't an American citizen, that always rubs me a bit wrong, even if it's a legally correct decision. My allegiance isn't ultimately to a system that says, "screw the foreigner" because they aren't an American citizen. That person has the same rights I have, or they ought to, and I believe in that more than I pledge allegiance to any American republic.

[DMT]

So what does that mean for Walter Heisenberg when Germany asks him to build an atomic bomb? Or one might ask the same of the scientists recruited to the Manhattan Project, although that starts to hit a little closer to home.

I'll admit than when some U.S. court rules that a foreigner doesn't have constitutional rights because they aren't an American citizen, that always rubs me a bit wrong, even if it's a legally correct decision. My allegiance isn't ultimately to a system that says, "screw the foreigner" because they aren't an American citizen. That person has the same rights I have, or they ought to, and I believe in that more than I pledge allegiance to any American republic.

Foreigners have always been assumed to be of far lesser value. Just look at reporting of casualties in all of our wars. I agree with your last point, but it's never been the case and never will be.

As for pledging allegiance to our government, not a chance in hell. They are (and have been for awhile) the cause of more violence than any other organization on earth. And if your (not you specifically KS) immediate response is "then just leave", I am only still here because my wife would never leave.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I also think the formulation that American troops/veterans are willing to die or have died for my/our freedom is problematic. They may have died for my safety. They may have died for my economic well-being. They have made great sacrifices. But "they died for my freedom" seems awfully trite and to make a huge leap of logic that isn't necessarily justified.

Sometimes they died for revenge. Sometimes they died pointlessly. Sometimes they died to help people in other countries (the Kuwaitis, French, the British, etc.). But not everything that our country deems worth fighting for in its national interest is "for our freedom."

I think it demeans and sometimes perverts the sacrifices that we ask our military personnel to make when we wrap everything they do in the flag and act as if they are defending our way of life, our rights, and our freedom. That's the responsibility of everyone, and it doesn't always involve military force (rarely should?).