MovieChat Forums > Knives Out (2019) Discussion > Demographic analogy for America

Demographic analogy for America

posted 4 years ago by OvertonPendulum (4026)
19 replies | jump to latest

Near the end of the movie Chris Evans's character says to Marta:

"We allowed you into our home. We let you watch our granddad, we welcomed you into our family. And now you think you can steal it from us? You think I'm not gonna fight to protect my home, our birthright, our ancestral family home?"

In this movie they made Evans the bad guy, but the lines above are exactly what has happened in America demographically. Whites conquered the land from violent savages, creating the richest country in the world, allowed Hispanics into their "family" making them American citizens who now steal from Whites. Both directly by committing so much crime and more importantly indirectly by using the government to dispossess them both financially and politically by becoming the majority, essentially stealing the entire country.

Too bad the movie is left wing otherwise it could have been a great way to expose the theft that is currently occurring against White people.

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 4 years ago

Even more ironically the movie is made by Jews who also steal the land from Palestinians just a few decades ago and then essentially not allow anyone who isn't Jewish into the country. And they have the nerve to lecture us about stealing other people's land.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

To be fair Israel was Jewish before Islam was invented and then aggressively conquered the entire Middle East.

[–] Mark58 (10) 4 years ago

I am Jewish, and the situation is more complex. There have been a lot of bad things done on both sides. The 1948 war which was 3 years after the holocaust was called the war of genocide by the arabs. That being said, most American Jews, myself included are against the Israeli's building settlements on Palestinian land. I am sure the director condemns that also.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

I don’t have a dog in this fight but I find it interesting that the media narrative is Jews = evil conquerors, Palestinians = eternal victims. When the reality is that Israel won Gaza and the West Bank in a defensive war in which Egypt and Jordan tried to annihilate Israel and all its inhabitants.

Sharon gave Gaza back to the Palestinians on the condition of peace, only for Hamas (democratically elected) to use the land as a launchpad for endless rockets into Israel.

So it’s small wonder they won’t be making the same mistake with the West Bank, and I can see why they might feel within their rights to build in that land, especially since Islam has conquered the entire Middle East and nobody bats an eyelid.

[–] Satan2016 (23262) 3 years ago

Another anti-Semite repeating lies from neo-Nazis! If you look maps of biblical Israel it is bigger than current Israel and "Palestine". The Balfour declaration proposed a bigger Israel. Before Israel's creation Gaza was occupied by Egypt (Africa) and West Bank by Jordan!

[–] Ranb (7136) 4 years ago

How is conquering different than stealing? How did Americans conquer the "violent savages"? Did they do it without being violent?

Your imaginary justification for conquering land without stealing it from the owners is just as warped as Hugh's (Evans) thinking that the recently purchase home he had no claim to was his birthright.

[–] Moonglum9 (10699) 4 years ago

Yes, the American colonists just said "Cmon heathens, give us your land, mmmkay." They did, and the rest is history.

[–] Ranb (7136) 4 years ago

Whites did more than steal land from violent savages. It was also stolen from civilized Mexicans, Spanish and others.

Your view of the supreme whites "rightfully" taking land from the owners is as warped as Ransom's. The persons most responsible for "stealing wealth" are the rich capitalists of any race who are able to run their companies by paying their employees just enough so that the turnover rate among their serfs does not reduce their bottom line.

Requiring employers, especially the rich ones, to pay a living wage instead of peanuts which makes their employees qualified for welfare would make things better for almost everyone. Do you really want your taxes going to support underpaid employees of rich companies?

[–] joegerardi (376) 4 years ago

Naive view. What is a "rich company?" What is a "living wage," and whose standard of living? Why, if I create something, build it up, make it extremely profitable, and pass it on to my progeny required to pay others their idea of what's fair?

And which Mexicans did we st3eal from? Texas was paid for. They were given almost 450 billion (in 1991) dollars for the Mexican Cession. How was that "stolen?"

And our taxes also go to support 3rd and 4th generation entitlement people, whose job it is to avoid any kind of work while living off the government tit. Do you really want your taxes to pay for their unwillingness to fend for themselves?

..Joe

[–] Ranb (7136) 4 years ago

You're being evasive. I asked if you want your tax dollars paying for the welfare benefits that underpaid workers get from rich corporations. It seems as if you prefer to pay more taxes to help large corporations pay their employees instead of those employees getting a living wage from their employers.

Surely you are aware that Mexico possessed more of what is now the USA than Texas.

[–] joegerardi (376) 4 years ago

You need to learn what the Mexican Cession actually consisted of. Your uneducated view borders on myopia.

..Joe

[–] Ranb (7136) 4 years ago

Just because a treaty was signed and lands were ceded does not mean a theft did not occur. If the US had not invaded Mexico, then the lands would not now be owned by the US.

So, you want your tax dollars paying for the welfare benefits that go to the underpaid workers of rich corporations?

[–] joegerardi (376) 4 years ago

I already responded to this- Sure. If we can pay 3rd- and 4th-generation entitlement recipients, why not give it to people too stupid to get educated to get a real job?

And again, the US didn't take Texas- Texas was taken by individuals that formed their army, then their own country, and only years after that agreed to join the US.

(Because of that, Texas is the only state that can fly its flag above the US.)

Again, do your research.

..Joe

[–] Ranb (7136) 4 years ago

So illegal aliens taking over land from another country is fine as long as Americans are doing the stealing? Do you also favor Mexicans and others illegally crossing our borders?

I prefer that capitalists pay their workers living wages instead of encouraging the tax payers to do so. What you prefer sounds too much like marxism.

[–] joegerardi (376) 4 years ago

Yeah- the liberal claptrap again. What is a "living wage?" What work should be required to get it? No one ever seems to have that answer, and more to the pointy, do you give up half your pay to give someone else a "living wage?" Why is it with you Socialists, it's always someone else's money you want to give away, never your own? Because believe it or not, YOU'RE one of those "capitalists" that denying a living wage to the proletariat.

And again, "Americans" didn't steal Texas. It was its own country, with its own citizens. You can't seem to get that, or you're purposely ignoring it because it destroys your argument.

Or are you too stupid to get that point?

..Joe

[–] Ranb (7136) 4 years ago

You don't have to play stupid. It is easy to figure out what a living wage is.

So it was the Mexicans in Texas that rebelled against the Mexican government? No it was not. In 1821 after Mexican independence, the area that is now Texas was included in state of Coahuila y Tejas. In other words it was part of Mexico. Because it was sparsely settled, immigration was encouraged. Soon after most of the residents of the state were American immigrants, not Mexicans.

Some of the immigrants brought slaves into the state and flouted other laws. When the federalists revolted against the Mexican capitol, the Americans in Texas sided with them. By 1835 there was armed conflict and the American immigrants drove out the Mexican army and declared the Texas republic.

The Texian army was able to defeat the Mexican army under Santa Anna and eventually the Republic of Texas was created. They allowed slavery prohibited the freeing of slaves, required free blacks to leave the country and did not allow native American citizenship.

Texas was annexed in 1844 and became a state in 1845. Texas was dominated by American immigrants prior to independence and it was the American immigrants who seized the state from Mexico. This is easy to read about; not sure why you resist learning about history.

[–] joegerardi (376) 4 years ago

Good. you can quote somewhere else. But you're missing your own point- reread the line "American immigrants drove out the Mexican army and declared the Texas republic."

Therefor it was its own country. A country of mostly non-Mexicans.

So how did the US "steal" the country from Mexico when it was no longer Mexican territory? It was part of land legally purchased by the US. That ain't stealing, it's buying. Every argument you post is specious.

And as to a living wage, for some it's 20 grand, for some it's 50 grand.Who gets to decide?

..Joe

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 4 years ago

The world you are looking for is conquer. Nobody says the Ottomans "stole" the Balkans or the Moors "stole" the Iberian peninsula or the Moghuls "stole" India. It's only when White people do it it's called theft.

[–] Bloodworth79 (5555) 3 years ago

This was part and parcel of the times. Early in human history civilizations would go around friending or conquering those they encountered.

If any other advanced group arrived in America they would they would have done the same