Again, i think you should read all the way through and ask who is "well actually"-ing

Her original post isn't a response to anyone, just exercising frustration at calling bad things "unamerican".

The one i'm responding to is quoting it to put words in her mouth.

Who is in whose mentions matters.

(also, above is the exact opposite of what you describe.

It'd be like a German person saying "This is exactly who we've been" and someone saying "well actually, you must think the Nazis weee good")

DING DING DING

*aspirational* is the key word.

"this is un-american" is untrue. "this doesn't have to be american" is aspirational.

The former dismisses the lived experience of folks who know different. The latter is in service of actual change.

The converse doesn't follow.

"Racial violence is very American" is a true statement.

She's saying calling the above "unamerican" is dismissive of the reality.

It's *not* saying that's all that America *can* be, or the entirety of what it is. But that disavowing it is dishonest.

It's effectively a "no true scotsman" argument.

I don't think the original QT is off base about what our ideals should be based on the arguments made by our founding documents.

But I do think they're misunderstanding what's being conveyed by what they're quoting.

Perhaps, but that's not actually the frame, hence my clarification.

The frame isn't that American hegemony is universal. It's that calling it "unamerican" is dishonest and counterproductive inasmuch as it makes it seem as though our ideals *are* universally understood.

But yeah, to call things "unamerican" is to essentially deny the experience of people who have continually experience those "unamerican" things *in America*.

I'm a fan of @prophiphop.bsky.social's quote,

"I don't hate America, I just demand she keep her promises."

...but it's a similar problem.

Just as it's incredibly "American" to have racist policies, it's also very "American" to call the job done when the problems a no longer as overtly on display.

It's also "American" to put your ass on the line to fix shit!

These things aren't mutually exclusive...

Also, this is a fundamental example of the framing problem to me:

While it's certainly escalated, ICE was ABSOLUTELY acting 15 months ago. Biden had ramped *up* deportations, and hadn't stopped family separations.

This isn't to harp on you specifically, this is a very common understanding...

I mean, by all means, create your own definition of being "American", just remember the context in this case was someone calling out a black woman expressing frustration over the term effectively erasing the experience and trauma of people like her. Which is *absolutely valid*.

Actually changing shit requires understanding that problems are systemic and not tied to a particular demagogue.

It's why we didn't spend any of the four years in between his terms actually strengthening the freedoms we claim to cherish.

There's nothing wrong with getting people angry.

As a rhetorical device, i think of it as akin to the war on drugs.

Heroin is dangerous as hell, sure. However, D.A.R.E. lying about drugs only served to show kids they're full of shit.

"unamerican" is a poor argument for the same reasons.

No.

The argument is that "un-american" (or "this isn't who we are", if you prefer) is mistaking our ostensible ideals for our historical behavior.

Doing so is how we got into this mess. It's the genesis of "it couldn't happen here" and, well, it's happening.

The Running With Big Naturals Man

Don't Be A Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood With Big Naturals