For today’s discussion, I am back to the Syrian Refugee crisis. I recently saw a post that seems to have a few loose screws, but thought anyone willing to say something deserves their moment in the spotlight. The post can be seen here. The post simplifies the idea of refugees escaping deadly conflict down to a bowl of M&Ms, because that is appropriate. There are several attempting to pass off the post as a metaphor, but then, naturally, react negatively when the same analogy is applied to, say, guns. However, let’s view the post for what it attempts to do by placing “bleeding heart liberals” in a position to own and defend their position. A few facts from Shreye,
“A couple of conversational facts regarding Syrian refugees:
There are 14.4 million refugees in the world, 4.2 million of whom are Syrian (30%). The federal limit for total refugees is 70,000 people, just 10,000 of those admitted next year to the U.S. will be Syrian (14.2%). This is a negligible fraction of the 3.2 million taken by our European allies and Turkey.
There are about 2,200 Syrian refugees currently in the United States, who like future admitted refugees, have waited years while being vetted by several federal and international agencies and could have been denied admission without appeal for any reason.
That is 44 people, and an additional 200 people a year. There are Chem 101 sections larger than the potential Syrian refugee threat to America.”
(Shreye said that for the record, CH101 in 2011 average size was 250 and he is assuming that has not decreased)
Ok, that might place things in a better perspective than “CowboysDerek” as far as the fact we are discussing humans fearing for their lives and not a simple treat. See, in one case, those of us “bleeding heart liberals” are foregoing fear to address a humanitarian crisis where we prefer not to see history repeated, not simply chancing our lives on a sweet treat. So when all is said and done, I would prefer we did not simplify an issue regarding humans to a psychological test on fear with a few poisoned M&Ms. See I, contrary too conservative beliefs, understand that this post (I hope) was meant as a metaphor. However what those defending this post fail to do is recognize the humanity in the situation, and in doing so they abandon their own humanity.
Individuals such as “CowboysDerek” throw around terms such as Bleeding heart liberals as if it is a bad thing. He assumes it is a threat and is said with disgust in such a way as to make individuals such as myself feel bad. Unfortunately for Mr. CowboysDerek, that is not a negative moniker. Us “Bleeding heart liberals” have been shown time and again throughout history to be on what is ultimately viewed as the positive, or for those of you who prefer, the ‘winning’ side of history. Whether addressing slavery around the civil war, wages and child labor laws, segregation and Jim crow, or even marriage equality. Guess what, we “bleeding heart liberals” happen to be whom everyone decided were right in regards to history around taking Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. I mean, would you want be on the side of the guy defending Japanese internment during WWII ?
So, with all due respect CowboysDerek, find a legitimate example. For example, perhaps challenge us to take a refugee or their family in ourselves (not technically possible but certainly we can offer them friendship if they are relocated near us) rather than an antiquated attempt at reducing the living parts from a problem in order to instill fear and still fail to make your point. Challenge us to write our governors and mayors, or call them, and state that we support the in take of refugees. In short, provide a practical example rather than trying to creatively tell us to go kill ourselves because we annoy you.