At a recent town-hall-style campaign appearance by Mr. Schwarzenegger in Orange County, Larry Collins, vice president of a local Republican club, asked the first question, and it was about border security. Mr. Collins said later that although he supported Mr. Schwarzenegger, he wanted the governor to take a harder line on immigration. He said he could not bear hearing more and more Spanish being spoken in the county, and he wondered about the legality of the newcomers. "We are being overloaded with a potential hazard," Mr. Collins said. Even as Mr. Schwarzenegger seeks to hold on to voters like Mr. Collins, he is striving to attract Latinos. His aides concede that if the election is close, Latino voters could prove vital, and so they have embarked on a campaign to attract them, particularly native-born middle-class and professional Latinos.Hispanic Business - A Growing Voice - HISPANIC BUSINESS Magazine.
The 2004 presidential election will be marked as a time when a record number of Hispanic voters went to the polls, and two Hispanics, Ken Salazar of Colorado and Mel Martinez of Florida, were catapulted to office in the U.S. Senate for the first time in nearly three decades.All over the country, politicians are handling courting the Latino voter in different ways. Pols in areas populated heavily by Hispanic immigrants usually throw in the towel and urge every kind of advantage for immigrants, legal or illegal, including such things as in-state tuition for higher education. Bush, who may have garnered up to 44% of the Latino vote, puts forth his amnesty plan. Schwarzenegger, who got 33% of the Hispanic vote, straddles issues, like having the National Guard troops on the border. One day he is for it, and the next day against it.
What may not be clear yet, however, is whether it eventually also will be seen as a clear demarcation of the electorate's growing sophistication and power and evolution from a stalwart piece of the Democratic Party base to an unpredictable and perhaps fragmented swing-voter group.
National Electoral Pool results showed 44 percent of Hispanic voters chose President Bush, up 8 percentage points from the 2000 elections and the most for any Republican presidential candidate in decades.
I understand the pols’ dilemma. The Republicans in California, for example, lost the Hispanic vote to the Democrats in a serious way after championing Proposition 187. As a result, California is now largely a Democratic state. Schwarzenegger will not make this kind of mistake.
So, there are two ways to win the Hispanic vote. One is to pander. This seems to work quite well. This is the Democratic approach, and, after all, they are garnering the majority of Hispanic votes at this time. The second way is to straddle, which is Bush and Schwarzenegger’s method. This way, they hold on to their base, and get at least a third of the Hispanic vote. This method is effective now, but may not continue to work, as the Hispanic vote will continue to grow.
There is only one sure way to both court the Hispanic vote and hold on to conservative values. It is not to pander. It is not to straddle. Rather, it is to invite Hispanics to become full-fledged assimilated Americans with a stake in this country as Americans. (By the way, I think this same approach must be used with African-Americans.) Family values, for example, are not alien to Hispanics. Hispanics hold several conservative principles naturally, like being pro-business and concerned with national security.
The sticking points will always be issues like immigration, English as the American language, and entitlement programs for the poor and for immigrants. Here, too, though, the best strategy will not be to throw in the towel, like the Democrats, nor to straddle, like the Republicans. It is best to go after the Hispanic community directly on these matters. Find Hispanics who are conservative on these concerns and send them into the Hispanic communities for direct dialogue. Hispanics became Hispanics, after all, because a European country dominated them for centuries. Eventually, they gave up their native tongues in favor of Spanish. I don’t pretend that the same thing will happen here. They will always keep Spanish as an active part of their communication. I do believe, though, that there are several advantages for them in learning English, the international language of business. We must assume they are reasonable people, and will see this. Maybe not this generation, but surely their children.
As far as entitlement programs for illegal immigrants, Hispanics will be moving into the middle class. They will be the ones paying for these programs one day. Then, it will not be in their interest to support a welfare state, nor the socialism of the Democrats. Again, I think the best approach is to communicate with them directly on this kind of issue.
It will not help to have an “us" versus "them” mentality. In a democracy, they will win. Let’s be real. The only way to really court them, and continue winning our base, is to invite them to join us, to convince them that conservative values are good for everyone, Hispanics included.
22 comments:
paz y amour, nice to hear from you, as always.
Pandering and fence sitting are not Democrat or Republican methods, they're politician methods! How many handshakes, avoided questions, kissed babies and kissed asses do politicians of all colors conduct every election to get elected?
I think the Democrats own pandering on this issue. Yes, these are politician methods, but the Republicans are straddling, because they have two opposing viewpoints to coddle. The Dems are unified on this issue.
Just as the US government of the 1800's forced Native American adults and children to stop using their native languages or face punishment, the Spanish government forced conquered tribes to speak Spanish.
Maybe that's the solution, then. We should just force them to speak English. Just kidding.
EVERYONE here, except for Native Americans came to the country as an immigrant or a descendant of one. Some came legally, some didn't and others were FORCED. The concept that the country is one of many cultures, "E pluribus unum", is a falsehood if people are forced to learn a new language simply because others are uncomfortable hearing it when they shop.
This is why people are so upset with Hispanics (fine--whites, and some African-Americans I know). All previous immigration waves came to America to be Americans. They didn't come to be hyphenated Americans. They came with the express goal of learning English. I don't admire the Balkans, nor Canada. I don't think they are better countries because they are multi-lingual. The opposite.
E-pluribus-unum includes unum. It does not mean separate people living in the same geographical area. It means different people UNITED, by a common culture, values, and goals, and, hopefully, language. Learning English was good enough for African-Americans who spoke Swahili, and the Irish, the Spanish, the Poles, the Russians, the Germans, and so on. Now, suddenly, immigrants from Mexico et al insist on Balkanizing America.
Plus, I think white America has done pretty good accepting diversity. There has always been a core of white Americans, going back to the founding of the country, who believed in equality and respect for all. America is an evolving country. It fought a civil war to free the slaves. It fought the Ku Klux Klan to stop injustices. It joined in the Civil Rights struggle of the 50's and 60's. It celebrates athletes of all races now, and Secretaries of State, and even, I believe, would elect a Black president at this time. I think it's time to stop villainizing whites. Just because I want an America united in culture, identity and language does not make me racist.
Thanks again for your comments, paz. Have a good evening.
Eh, paz y amor, I must say in this immigration debate I am on Rock's side.
(when the issue is
-- neither Rock's blatant pro-Israel propaganda (which borders on betraying his own country - USA),
---- nor Rock's impotent lust to force the whole world to live as he says (neo-con),
- apart from those - much of what Rock says makes sense - after all, conservatism is the sound foundation of (any) society)
So, back to the immigration:
paz said:
EVERYONE here, except for Native Americans came to the country as an immigrant or a descendant of one. Some came legally, some didn't and others were FORCED.
not really, paz,
before, say, end of XIX century USA (before WWII for Canada) - America was not a country/society to immigrate into, but it was just a territory to settle in.
but that time is long gone. Today's North America consists of 2 mature countries-societies (USA and Canada). One cannot just come in and settle here no more, sorry. Now it's immigration.
And this is when the difference between the "white people" and most others shows:
- take me, for example. I did immigrate to Canada. And, being a "white" myself (ie European), I see to it that it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to become a Canadian, learn English, live the way canadians do, etc. That's how we (Europeans) see immigration. Yes, I am different from bona fide canadians - and I would never become a WASP or whatever - but I, (being a european) see that it's 90% MY BURDEN to blend into my new home society.
Canada owes me nothing. Neither Canada is obligated to learn my language. I am allowed to try to immigrate, that's all I (can possibly) ask from my new home.
That's how we, "whites" (europeans), see immigration. When in Rome do as the romans do. The burden of naturalization is 90% on the new immigrant. V tchuzoy monastyr so svoim ustavom ne hodiat. (that's Russian saying - translation: if one comes to other's abbey, one must live by that abbey's charter)
Of course, as I can easily see here, in Canada, other peoples do not share this european view on immigration. They (south asians, muslims in europe, etc) see that they came to new territory to settle, to bring their own society into the new territory. They see the host society as an obstacle to their own society, obstacle to push, push away and (jihadist view) - to eliminate altogether.
Well, that's one way to see immigration. Not mine, though.
Am I going to accept that non-european view of immigration? Not so fast, dear paz. I have my own ideas of what humans should be.
If and when those societies (south asians, indiand, muslims, mexicans, etc) show that they are able to live and support progress on their own, without depending on West ('s universities, medicine, science, technology, etc), when they have their own astronauts orbiting the planet or landing on the Moon - then I'd learn Pushtu.
As for now - you come to North America - you learn English. (French in Quebec). Period.
If you don't like it - don't come, what's the problem? You are not going to say, that anyone has a "right" to come and live in North America, no?
Igor, what difference does it make WHEN someone came to the country, my point was that everyone here (except for Native Americans) came from some place else and that is what is hypocritical about the issue at hand and all the "You can't take my country" rhetoric. It's alright for Europeans to come in and take over someone's land, but if Asians and Hispanics "do it" (which isn't happening by the way), it's the end of WalMart and known civilization. I too have an issue with people crossing the border illegally and then marching down American streets demanding rights and services. However, there will be NO mass deportation of 12 million people, so let's get a real viable plan together that makes sense. Close up the border(s), legalize the ones that are here. Make them pay taxes like everyone else. I agree that immigrants SHOULD learn Englih but "forcing" them to learn fluent English- which some propose- is ridiculous. Being straight from Europe Igor, you know that most if not all those countries have a variety of languages that are spoken by a variety of their citizens and many individual people learn to speak three or four different languages. In Amsterdam, all the signs are in French, English, Dutch, AND German. Big deal! The main thing I've heard argued against immigration (not in this forum) is that "I don't like hearing/reading/seeing Spanish when I go shopping!". I say GET OVER IT
Rock- I wasn't saying you were racist, on the contrary, you're a lot more intelligent and adept than those assholes, nor was I villainizing White people. I was saying that historically, White America hasn't been as welcoming as you like to think. YES there were White people helping on the Underground Railroad, YES there were White people marching for equal rights along side minorities, YES there were White people fighting for justice for all, but these White people of great valor were a minority of Whites living in the country- and were sometimes subjected to severe punishment if caught helping minorities out. If a majority of Whites felt differently and wanted equal status for everyone throughout history, there would have been no slavery, no Jim Crow, no indentured servitude, no sharecropping. This move towards national acceptance is fairly new (10-15 years) and that occurs mainly in urban areas. Trust me, you won't catch my ass, alone, at night, in some rural Georgia town. They might even get Igor!
A major point that is missing in the whole immigration argument is the fact that Black/Hispanic/Asian people would LOVE to be considered "Americans" but America (read: White America) isn't quite ready to accept them as such. And it's all in the language. Colin Powell and Condi Rice (the most intelligent cabinet members the president has ever had) won't be remembered as great Secretaries of State, they'll be known as the first Black Secretaries of state, Alberto Gonzalez- the first Hispanic Attorney General, Elaine Chao- the first Asian in ANY presidential cabinet, Warren Moon is known as the first Black quarterback in the Hall of Fame, me- the Black dude who comments on your blog. Rock, read how you referred to Ken Salazar and Mel Martinez- not as senators, but as "Hispanic senators". If you viewed them as truly and purely "Americans", you wouldn't find it necessary to identify their heritage in any way, at any time. You may think that they'd want to hang on to that hyphen but I can assure you that any of them (including myself) would rather be known for their accomplishments and as a great person rather than a great "Black/Asian/Hipanic person". To your credit Rock, you don't refer to Larry Elder as a "Black Conservative" (clap clap clap) and its a step in the right direction, but the rest of the country just isn't like that.
Don't feel as though I'm assuming you're viewing minorities as "less than American", but it's as though they are a different TYPE of American. Sure Irish, Polish and German immigrants came here to be "Americans" and though they had problems at first, they were fully integrated into American society once those hyphenations were dropped from their ethnicities. They still had a historical common thread with the English folks who colonized the US and began running government- which is a European ancestry. It's pretty hard to tell where a White person's grandparents or parents came from until they talk about their heritage, thereby eliminating any marginilization. That's not possible with any other ethnic group due to the fact that you KNOW a Black/Asian/Hispanic/Arab person when you see them.
I love watching the World Cup mainly because of all the pagaentry and the one thing that strikes me more than anything else is all the songs and chants you hear from the crowd as their respective team/country plays ball. The US doesn't have team chants like that, a. because unlike the rest of the world- soccer isn't a hugely popular sport and b. there is not the same sense of unity. However I'm hopeful that eventually, we'll all just be called human.....
paz,
######################
1) what difference does it make WHEN someone came to the country ...
here is the difference I see:
When europeans arrived in North America, or in Australia, those were NOT countries, those were the territories with indigenous population, who were yet to get to the idea of a "society-country that owns and governs its own territory".
Granted, that does NOT make europeans any less guilty in how they did treat poor aborigines, but there is a difference.
Today's immigrants do come into a society that governs its own territory.
#######################
2) It's alright for Europeans to come in and take over someone's land, but if Asians and Hispanics [ do it ], it's the end of ... known civilization.
Well, let me put it clearly here: in my view, anyone can come in and take over someone's land. That's how humans lived for millenia. Love it or leave it (ie commit suicide). Who, tell me, prevented north american indians to come and take over Europe? No-one, except themselves. Have you heard about evolution and survival of the fittest ?
Now, having said that, let me continue:
the fact that you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it or even want to do it.
Fortunately, humans evolve to understand (liberals among them, at least) that it's always better to trade and respect each other, than to conquer each other.
Still, if hispanics or muslims want to conquer North America, well, they have the right to do it. The right to try, actually. The current "indigenous population" won't surrender without a fight, unlike indians did.
In short, I see countries and societies as neighbours on this planet. It is better to neighbourly respect and trade with each other, but each household is completely in charge of its own internal affairs. Like the immigration process, and which language is the official, etc.
You me agree?
######################
3) I agree that immigrants SHOULD learn Englih.
I lost you here. If they speak English, there is no need for Spanish announcement in walmart. If they don't understand announcement in english => that means they don't speak it. But you say they should learn it. Why then you want to have spanish announcements in walmart?
#####################
4) In Amsterdam, all the signs are in French, English, Dutch, AND German.
Yes. Because those languages represent cultures that came to common understanding of what I (for one) consider the most important:
- intolerance of crime, corruption;
- abandonment of religious zealotry;
- liberalism and enlightenment;
- education;
- scientific and technological progress;
- peaceful foreign policy;
and so on....
As soon as Mexico becomes, at least, corruption-free - I would stop wincing when seeing a spanish sign in Toronto, I promise.
############################
############################
############################
6) A major point that is missing in the whole immigration argument is the fact that Black/Hispanic/Asian people would LOVE to be considered "Americans" but America (read: White America) isn't quite ready to accept them as such.
I am afraid that you mix up persons and ethnic groups. When a particular person wants to "be an American" - it's very easy for her/him to accomplish -
speak English,
respect the law,
don't cheat,
pay dues and taxes,
have a shower daily,
don't come late to work and meetings,
obey traffic signs,
etc ....
No big dea, really. Piece of cake, if s/he wants to. And s/he would be easily accepted as "exemplar american" by even the most xenophobic WASP.
What's the problem here?
#########################
#########################
#########################
7) paz, whites/blacks issue is different from natives/immigrants issue. Very look-alike, related, but different.
as for an immigrant being automatically accepted even in a rural hilly-billy county - well, life is tough. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. EVEN IN EUROPE. EVEN IN HOLLAND. Come back in 200 years.
paz, thanks for the clarifications. I'll comment more when I get home from work.
igor, thank you for your compliment. I'll comment more on what you have to say when I get home from work.
Rock, Methinks that your blog-entry has rustled the Sleeping Giant in many of us. LOL (So why are you still working? Your public awaits you!)
Personally, I believe that the Hispanic influence in America will be a beneficial influence. As a population, Hispanics have good family values and will continue to
bring their love of family, religion, celebration, and work ethics to our Country. We The People can certainly use the positive influence they will impart here. But I am speaking of legal Hispanic residents, not the illegal residents who are creating numerous issues for America.
Although 1 in 5 Hispanics are receiving AFDC (figures extrapolated from Census data), the hispanic population is fairly conservative. By comparison, about 1 in 10 non-Hispanic mothers were AFDC recipents. Although both Hispanic and non-Hispanic mothers on AFDC were an average of 20 years old when they had their first child, Hispanic women had almost 0.7 more children than non-Hispanic women. About 3 in 10 Hispanic mothers on AFDC were born outside the United States.
About 9 percent (392,000) of the Nation's 4.2 million foreign-born mothers aged 15-44 were on AFDC. About three-quarters of all foreign-born mothers on AFDC were not citizens of the United States.
Hispanics have strong religious and family belief systems. It stands to reason that this segment of our voting population will vote conservatively. I agree with your statement regarding assimilation. While Hispanics are generally protective (and proud) of their culture and their language, I believe that the majority of Hispanics want to assimilate and share in the wealth of America. I believe that the majority of Hispanics here in the USA want to be here legally so they can become American citizens.
I see absolutely no reason that Gov. Schwarzenegger does not speak the truth by showing some of the data that our Census has provided. Reviewing some of my gathered statistics the numbers clearly show that it would be a win-win situation if non-citizens were properly returned to Mexico (the border entry-point) or required to obtain citizenship within a set period of time. Educating the Hispanic population to the realities of U.S. citizenship would be the intelligent thing for the Republican party to do.
Roughly 9% of our population is non-citizens
Approximately 75% of the foreign-born population entered the USA in the last decade.
The statistics are as follows:
48.6% of the foreign-born population entered the USA in 1990 or later
24.5% entered the USA during 1980-1989
As of 2002, 7.9% of the NON CITIZENS were unemployed and 44.4% were not even in the civilian work-force.
Comparing US born citizens, naturalized citizens, and non-citizens, there were more non-citizens living below the poverty level than citizens in ALL age categories. Overall, 19.7% of the total families who were non-citizens were living below-poverty level (more than twice the percentage of naturalized and native US families).
68.4% of all non-citizens reside in the West or the South parts of the USA, and 94% of the total non-citizen population resides in or around a large metropolitan area or a central city in the USA.
Republicans will hopefully get jiggy with the demographic groups. Republicans need to also consider the latest Zogby poll findings. Silly as it sounds, the Republicans need to woo those weekly Walmart shoppers. Apparently the Democratic party will be picking up some of the Walmart labor issues so that their platform will be more appealing to some working-stiffs. Again, demographics.....
On the comments:
Rock said, ".. I think white America has done pretty good accepting diversity. There has always been a core of white Americans, going back to the founding of the country, who believed in equality and respect for all..."
I would have to disagree with this statement, Rock. As America was growing in the late 1700s and well into the early 1800s, a number of settlers impacted the country. Settlers emigrating beyond the settled borders were driving the Indians further and further into the western portions of our country. (And to quickly address Paz y amor's comment about native Indians being the only group that didn't immigrate, sorry, you are incorrect -- even Indians migrated. Tribes were nomadic for survival reasons.) Our history has taught us that wars occurred due to the numerous clashes between the native Americans and the settlers. After the Battle at Little Big Horn, the natives although the clear victors in this battle, turned towards government reservations in an effort to end the bloodshed between the warring parties: the native Americans and white America. The natives were given very little in return for their "cooperation" in the settling of the West.
At the end of the Civil War, I believe that America was actually at a crossroads. With black slavery ending, the next logical step was to accept black Americans as a segment of the American population. Yet, this did not occur -- we had a segregated portion of our population living predominantly within its own people. And during this time, Colored became Negroes became Blacks became Non-White became African-Americans became Blacks. The race-name changed about every 20 years but the problems remained for black Americans.
Leaders in America saw serious problems with the segregated and diverse population during the last half of the 20th Century and began pushing for changes. Racial tensions were evident as the growing population of black Americans realized that they were not being treated as equally as the majority of white Americans were. To many, there was increasing evidence that this belief had merit, and our government began implementing laws to protect its population from bigotry and prejudice while hoping to create less diversion between black and white Americans. Rather ironic that this occurred, because the 'racial equality' issue grew to be an issue that the Government was trying to eradicate by color-blending. Although the Government tried to work towards equality, the efforts and laws were definately tilted towards assisting black Americans at the cost of white Americans. While attempting to level the playing field for black America, we began seeing black-specific programs, agencies, groups, special fundings while white Americans were not permitted to be segregationalists with programs specifically set aside for white Americans. This double-standard did not go unnoticed and the result was a very racially charged issue between black and white Americans.
Without admitting it, I believe the Government has almost learned a life lesson here. Now, in the past decade, We The People are collectively acknowledging our own heritage. This does not translate to cultural differences, but to what our actual heritage is. To recent immigrants or 2nd generationals, the heritage and culture is much more acutely associated with one another. This is reality. Celebrating and honoring one's heritage is what family tradition is all about. Finally, our Government is not trying to assimilate everyone into fitting the one-size-fits-all mold. Blacks are different than Whites. Whites are different than natives. Blacks are not Hispanic. Asians are not Whites. This is a truth and this is reality. Celebrate uniqueness, family, tradition, heritage, and one's diversity. Thank God we ARE different. (Am I allowed to say "God" ?? lol)
So now we see The Government enter the picture with the new verbiage: DIVERSITY. Oh, now the Government is onto something. LOL. Acknowledging cultural differences! The only problem with the Government now is that they're confusing "diversity" with "we'll accommodate you, just tell us how". But hearing "Prensa dos para el espanol" on an automated telephone service is not what diversity is all about. I resent the bi-lingualism that America had readily pushed onto the millions of residents because Spanish has not ever been the predominant language of our Country. The bi-lingual/Spanish influx is merely a means to communicate more effectively with the large Hispanic population that has come to America in recent years.
America was populated by a large European population that, upon the first settlements, settled predominantly in Virginia and in Pennsylvania. The population in Pennsylvania became divided even in the 1700s and early 1800s when the founding families realized that there were more Germans immigrating into America than Scots-Irish. Prejudices, fears, immigration and cultural diversity were issues even 'back then'. And before that....
From all of my own education and research, I could never say that America accepts diversity. History has taught me otherwise. I see America as a huge blending of cultures, colors, intelligence, and talents. But We The People, and our own Government, continues to create divisions with the population. The Government needs to steer clear of playing Big Daddy/Uncle Sam on some of the cultural and heritage issues, instead of tossing out buzz-words like "diversity" for management teams to push on the work force.
I feel that if America had more unity with goal setting and more importance was placed on true values and morals, via outside channels (read: not the Gub'ment!), we might actually get it right as a Nation. As it stands, instead of "One Nation Under God", we have people and organizations challenging the very ideals that our Country was founded on. And aside from the celebrations of our Nation's independence on the Fourth of July, and our national Thanksgiving Day, we are most united as a Nation only in times of disaster. How sad it is to admit that the 9/11 tragedy brought our Nation more together than our own national celebrations.
Damn! Where'd she come from? Very insightful I must say, and I agree with the vast majority of what you said. Though the distinction should be made (regarding Native Americans) that not ALL tribes were nomadic, in fact, it was mainly central plains tribes (Lakota, Comanche, Cheyenne) that moved to follow buffalo herds. Virtually every other region had non-nomadic tribes -Yakima in Washington state, Iroquios in the Great Lakes, Seminole in Florida, Cherokee and Creek in Georgia etc.
Igor, you're way off base by implying that these tribes had no sense of "society-country that owns and governs its own territory". A government is simply a system set up to maintain control and harmony over a group of people and their forms of government was DIFFERENT but no less valuable. Is a tribal council any different than a legislature? A head tribal chief any different than a president? Do tribal wars over control of vital natural resources like horses, hunting grounds, and water access differ from cross border conflicts between countries for control of steel, sulfur, and OIL? When the US government wanted to expand into more land in the 1800's they talked to tribal leaders(diplomats) to ensure the safety of settlers. Give me a break Igor! You can't devalue a governmenal system simply because it's not structured in a European fashion. I have heard of "survival of the fittest" but since you're in Canada you probably haven't heard to story of Thanksgiving when the first Europeans who without the help of Native tribes would have starved to death. Were they "fit" to live in America? NO, apparently not, but they were TAUGHT how to survive by the same people who ended up catching a huge dick in the ass for their graciousness in the long run.
Let me clarify something else. The main complaints I hear from people regarding immigration is that they are "inconvinienced by the Spanish language" because signs are written in Spanish and there are Spanish options when you call your bank. My point was simply "get over it." What can you do about it if you don't understand what someone else is saying. They won't stop speaking it around you so get over it!Immigrants SHOULD learn English I agree with you, but forcing them isn't going make them speak English in your prescence.
paz:
1) you're way off base by implying that these tribes had no sense of "society-country that owns and governs its own territory". A government is simply a system set up to maintain control and harmony over a group of people and their forms of government was DIFFERENT but no less valuable. Is a tribal council any different than a legislature?
That's what I am saying ! - Indian tribes didn't challenge incoming settlers until there was a direct contact at local level and conflict of local activities (hunting, etc).
Yes, each tribe defended it's own local "hunting area", but no more than that. Not the whole, say, territory of (future) Pennsylvania.
Neither a tribe was going to help to defend other tribe's area... (generally; there _were_ unions - but they represent exceptions).
That's what I mean by "ungoverned territory". It's like a territory with private farms, each farm is defended by its owner, the owners do have some council to settle disputes, but the territory as a whole is un-governed compared to a today's country.
2) You can't devalue a governmenal system simply because it's not structured in a European fashion.
Well,... let's look at the final result: that "governmental system [of Indians]" proved to be unable to resist invasion of, generally speaking, unorganized flow of civilian settlers (with minimal support from regular european armies, if any). Indians folded without even facing a european country per se as an adversary. Isn't it the proof of their governmental system failure?
Yes, it's not politically correct to say so about our dear Indians, but, as you say - get over it!
3) you probably haven't heard to story of Thanksgiving when the first Europeans who without the help of Native tribes would have starved to death. Were they "fit" to live in America? NO, apparently not, but they were TAUGHT how to survive by the same people who ended up catching a huge dick in the ass for their graciousness in the long run.
Ah, cmon, it's a fairytale.
Do you want to say that if there were no indians to teach settlers how to catch a turkey, then North America would remain a wild, uninhabited continent because all europeans would die from hunger upon arrival ?! Pleeeeeze...
4) frankly, I lost the understanding of what we are talking about ;-) ....
.
I've got questions for Lynn S. :
you say: Personally, I believe that the Hispanic influence in America will be a beneficial influence. As a population, Hispanics have good family values and will continue to bring their love of family, religion, celebration, and work ethics to our Country.
1) they bring their ... work ethics
work ethics ?! are you sure ? I've never thought of Mexico or Guatemala as cradle of work ethics.... Japan, Germany, USA - yes, those ones are examples of work ethics, but .... Mexico ?!
2) they bring their ... religion
mmmm, look here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/well_at_least_w.html
don't you guys have enough of religion already ?
3) ... I believe that the Hispanic influence in America will be a beneficial influence ... - to what end, Lynn?
what is the purpose the America exist for ?
=============
you may say: that's none of your business, canadian!
True.
But I'd hate to see USA transforming into a new Mexico: full of mexican "work ethics", corruption, crime, religion, no science, no NASA, full of poverty, etc...
To Lynn, Igor, and paz y amour, thank you for all your wonderful comments, a great discussion! Lynn, you really added a lot with all your stats. Igor, I see we have more in common than I dreamed. Paz, good stuff.
I have an idea. I'm going to propose this to each of you, since you guys are some of the most intelligent commentors I've had, and you each have differing points of view. How about from time to time, one of you takes a turn at being the guest blogger on my site? You send me your copy for a post, and I'll post it. It doesn't have to be deep or profound, just something important to you. It doesn't have to be heavily researched or take a long time--just something you are passionate about. Then, we'll all comment on it, and the public can comment on it too. It can either be a set piece that we decide on, an idea of your own, or you can respond to a question I'll pose.
Of course, I'd be willing to "guest-blog" on your blogs too, if you have one, and if it's appropriate.
Let me know.
Thanx for the invitation, rock, but I would decline the honor for now.
I'd want to keep the right to give you a "magnificent Ann Coulter"(*) treatment whenever you:
1) either push your pro-Israel propaganda - that whole Western civilization must go and fight 1.3 billion muslims in the name of jews' folly to have their own state in particular place.
2) or push your neo-con propaganda - that America must rule the world and all others must either love America and do what it says, or get laser-guided bombs down their throats.
---------------------------------------------------------
(*) - I believe you called Ann Coulter "magnificent". I take it you like how she treats and speaks to ... mmm ... "liberals". So, I guess, you don't mind to be treated the way she treats her opponents, right?
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Let me remind you, that, as the owner of the blog, if you want, you may take any comment and post it as a blog entry. You may even edit it, combine them, or use them as base for your entry, provided it is explicitly stated that the comments have been edited, or just parts of the comments are used in your blog entry.
igor,
Thanx for the invitation, rock, but I would decline the honor for now.
I'd want to keep the right to give you a "magnificent Ann Coulter"(*) treatment whenever you:
Igor, I'm not trying to co-opt your opinions, or get you to change yours. Of course, I will continue to reject any comments that are not civil on this blog. I remain completely opposed to some of your views, but don't mind if you express them. Just because you're wrong on these issues, I still respect your right to hold them.
1) either push your pro-Israel propaganda - that whole Western civilization must go and fight 1.3 billion muslims in the name of jews' folly to have their own state in particular place.
Yes, this is one area of our disagreement. Yes, I believe we need to fight 1.3 billion Muslims, if that is what is called for, in the name of peace, justice, and humanity, in favor of the wonderful, humane, just, and remarkable Israeli's--as opposed to the autocratic, dictatorial, 14th century, barbaric terrorists. Yes, I agree that not all Muslims are terrorists, but too many of them support terrorism. Again, their religion desperately needs a reformation.
2) or push your neo-con propaganda - that America must rule the world and all others must either love America and do what it says, or get laser-guided bombs down their throats.
On this "issue" you've lost me. I don't know what you're talking about. You seem to have a visceral reaction to the label "neo-con," which to me is a pretty benign term. I don't want laser-guided bombs down anyone's throats, except terrorists. With them, I don't care what oriface the bomb enters.
(*) - I believe you called Ann Coulter "magnificent". I take it you like how she treats and speaks to ... mmm ... "liberals". So, I guess, you don't mind to be treated the way she treats her opponents, right?
Yes, Ann Coulter is magnificent. Again, I believe in telling the truth. She does it, without hesitation. Many Democrats and liberals, at this time in history, except for one's like paz y amour and a few others, deserve every name in the book. They are treasonous traitors, ill-informed, mantra-spouting vacuum heads, without an original idea, without a clue why they hate Bush, without a clue why they hate America, the best country on earth.
Let me remind you, that, as the owner of the blog, if you want, you may take any comment and post it as a blog entry. You may even edit it, combine them, or use them as base for your entry, provided it is explicitly stated that the comments have been edited, or just parts of the comments are used in your blog entry.
Thanks, but I hardly have enough time now to get my blog out--I can't spend time editing commenter comments. I also want to respect my commenter's wishes, only using their words as a post if they give permission. I do appreciate the time you and others take in making your comments, as you obviously are passionate in your feelings, and are well-informed on many issues--except on neo-conservatism and the wonderful Israeli's of course, igor.
Salom aleichem, Shalom Lecha, Peace Be Unto You.
Rock
rock,
let me clarify one issue:
1st you say: Of course, I will continue to reject any comments that are not civil on this blog.
and then you say: [liberals] deserve every name in the book. They are treasonous traitors, ill-informed, mantra-spouting vacuum heads, without an original idea, without a clue why they hate Bush, without a clue why they hate America
so: you think that
- it's ok to speak un-civilly about others (liberals, etc),
-- but it's a no-no to speak un-civilly about you,
yes?
so: you think that
- it's ok to speak un-civilly about others (liberals, etc),
-- but it's a no-no to speak un-civilly about you,
igor, I'm glad you brought this up. It will give me a chance to clarify. As Dennis Prager, another great man, always says, I prefer clarity to agreement.
I cannot and will not stop myself from denigrating philosophies, and those that espouse them, that are vacuous. On the other hand, I will attempt (although I may not succeed sometimes) to always speak to the person directly with respect. I know this might sound fuzzy, so let me further explain.
If I think Al Sharpton is a demagogue (which I do think), then in my posts I will say that he is a demagogue. If he comes on my blog, however, and comments respectfully, I will try to show him respect. I might say "I still think you are a demagogue, Al," but I won't say "I think you're an asshole," even though in my heart that is what I think.
I also will not accept racism or name-calling. Yes, you're right, it's a bit hypocritical of me. I call names in the third person. I might say, in the third person, that "Al Franken is a fat, dumb, airhead liberal." (which he is!) That's name-calling. But if he came on my post and was respectful, again, I would try not to call him names, and I would just stick to the points of argument. I would say, "Al, I disagree with you on the war in Iraq." I might say, "I think you are being unpatriotic," and even "treasonous," but I would not say, "Al, your mother is sucking cocks in hell, and you're a good target for Bubba the redneck."
I think the difference lies in whether there is hatred involved. I don't hate Al Franken. He's not evil. I don't want him dead. I feel he has the right to feel as he does about anything. I, on the other hand, have the right to think him stupid, and unpatriotic.
I accept that people are passionate about their points of view. Plus, they might foolishly disagree with me (just half kidding!). I accept all this. Just please don't make me into an evil ogre.
So, go ahead and call my views ignorant or stupid or unpatriotic. Just don't do it with hatred. Don't wish me ill-will. Don't cheer for my death or destruction or misfortune. Don't call me names if you can avoid it. Just stick to your points of disagreement with me.
Fine, bash neo-cons if you like. Bash Israel. Just don't get too passionate. Keep some distance from your subject matter. You are more powerful if you are cool and objective. Passion will come across even more if it is expressed in a reasonable manner.
I still don't get why you are so emotional over the label "neo-con." Did a neo-con do you some perceived harm?
Here is an example of what I don't want:
Rock, you're an asshole!
Here is what I will accept:
Rock, your support for Israel is unpatriotic.
Another example of what I won't accept:
Rock, you're a Jew, aren't you? That explains a lot.
What I will accept:
Are you Jewish? Don't answer if you don't want to. I just want to understand where you're coming from.
One shows hatred, racism, and contempt.
The other shows tolerance, respect, and acceptance.
Salaam aleichem.
Paz, I've been adding comments here and there when time permits. I'm the late-arrival to many of the daily entries, though. I'm sneaking in under the radar. LOL And you are correct about the natives -- I was generalizing, thinking mostly about migration as it related to immigration, so my mind was on the majority of tribes in the midwest and west. I realized my error after I submitted the comment but too lazy to come back and post more. Sorry about that, but good catch!
IGOR... IGOR... IGOR... IGOR......
Igor, one of the big problems that native Americans faced for hundreds of years was the loss of their lands and the buffalo, which was their predominant source of meat, hides, and even fuel (using their dried manure chips). Without their land and their means to sustain themselves, they lost their independent way of life. This was not their own doing but the doing of settlers and the US Government.
Also, Igor, you wrote:
each tribe defended it's own local "hunting area", but no more than that. Not the whole, say, territory of (future) Pennsylvania. Neither a tribe was going to help to defend other tribe's area...
You are incorrect with this statement. On a small scale, it was not uncommon for 2 or 3 tribes to join into a small war-party against settlers.
But in the mid-1800s, when a number of native American tribes were forced into smaller regions (what I call forced migration), they had no alternative but to join forces as a NATION against America. The battles facing natives had been going on for centuries and during the 1800s, the emigration across America influenced all lands that native peoples had direct, or even indirect, needs for. Their way of life is nothing like the way of life that we know or understand.
Some of the tribal people had not yet been in direct contact with White America (or the US Government), but tribal leaders saw convincing evidence that they must join into a sparring nation against White America. The Battle of Little Bighorn was one of the bloodiest battles fought between natives and White America (White America being the US Government, not directly involving settlers). This battle, fought in Garyowen, MT, was won by the Indians simply because the tribes banded together into the largest gathering of Indians ever recorded. The Nation gathered at Garyowen was intentional: to stop the US Government from further encroachment. Seeing the battlefield and the terrain there gives one a very good perspective on the advantages that the Natives had over the US Government. The companies under Custer and Reno didn't have a chance.
Not all native tribes had been encroached upon at that point in time but the gathering of the tribes was very large (about 7,000 Sioux, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Lakota...I forget the other tribes). But the Battle of Little Bighorn (1876) was the turning point for native Indians and even though they won the battle there, they lost their rights and independent way of life.
Igor also said this: let's look at the final result: that "governmental system [of Indians]" proved to be unable to resist invasion of, generally speaking, unorganized flow of civilian settlers (with minimal support from regular european armies, if any). Indians folded without even facing a european country per se as an adversary. Isn't it the proof of their governmental system failure?
I also disagree strongly with your sentiment and statements because it wasn't the lack of the native's "system", per se, that led to the ultimate surrender of the natives to the US Government. It was nothing more than the army's weaponry and the military forces that pushed native Americans into their ultimate defeat. Had the wars been hand-to-hand combat, I believe the natives would have earned more rights than they were given. In other words, the US soldiers would not have won the combat battles. However, the wars were very unfairly fought, from distances that weaponry would allow, the US Government was trespassing on their lands, using weaponry that obliterated not only warriers, but women and children....all for the sake of gaining ground for America.
Igor, I must urge you to learn American history if you are going try to debate this. Some native tribes were very capable of living with white settlers, while some tribes were very territorial and aggressive. Those tribes that chose to protect and claim their domain did choose to battle with many settlers. Generally, the Indians won, not the settlers.
To speak of the American settlers as having 'an unorganized flow', I urge you to learn about the very well documented pathways that were always chosen by settlers in America. Pioneer settlers were forced to travel in groups, and to travel on the known paths. Not only am I speaking of the paths well-known during the Great Migration era (1845-1865), but those paths that were used in earlier times (from Philadelphia to the south, going from point of entries): The Great Wagon Road and the Appalachian Warrior Path are the two most known trails. Very few pathways were cut through the vast forests and Indians were in the regions where settlers passed. Between forest trails and rivers, settlers were forced to stick with the paths that were frequented by others before them and well-known. The bottom line is that American settlers HAD to organize to traverse the terrain here in America.
And by the way, the natives DID face European armies, so I must disagree with your comment there, as well. Do you not know of the French and Indian Wars (1690s - 1760s)? And what about the American Revolution, during which time the "Indian Wars" were being fought in the western portion of America -- often stated to have been the worst Indian wars in American history.
Igor, you also wrote, "Indians folded without even facing a european country per se as an adversary. Isn't it the proof of their governmental system failure?" WOW. See above for a few of the named eras where Native Americans dealt with Europe/Britain.....
The Native American CULTURE was their demise. They placed a high value on their land and their belief system which is a VERY VERY different belief system than White Europeans. Native culture was about subsistence, independent living while celebrating and paying homage to their deities. Natives did not have the manufactured weapons to fight soldiers carrying guns because the soldiers were not of their world. They were unaware of such things until their lands were trespassed and invaded. Just because they had no land deeds, did not mean that the lands did not belong to their tribes. Under their belief and 'law', the lands were the sacred places where life was created, sustained, and ended....the circle.....White Europeans travelling into these lands did not understand their culture or their religion. It was different, but different does not make it wrong or less worthy of respect. But White Europeans could not subscribe to the native lifestyle, as they have always represented greed, accumulation of "wealth", and power. The ideals of White Europeans have created wars wherever they trod. Destroying native America was just one more conquest to them.
Igor, I'd also like to point out that in the USA, the Indian Reservation lands are protected lands that are governed via a number of legislative Acts. Tribes have the right to develop and enact their own Constitutions, too. The native Americans here in the USA really DO have structured government within their Reservations. You may want to reference them before making wrong statements again.
Oh, Igor, you did ask me a few things about the Hispanics. I can't determine if you are asking rhetorical questions or if you are presenting serious questions. Your question #1 is a bit muddled to me and I'm unsure if you are being cynical or not. What is it that you are asking?
Igor, your question #2 was regarding religion and you provided a link. I followed the link but came upon an article written on a poll about evolution. I read the article and reviewed the questions which are, by the way, HORRIBLY BIASED questions destined to skew any poll, but I did read it. What does the article have to do with Hispanic religion? Give me a hint....
And your #3 question is: I believe that the Hispanic influence in America will be a beneficial influence ... - to what end, Lynn?
what is the purpose the America exist for ?
I am really not following this at all. Could you be more specific about 'to what end' you are asking? And could you re-phrase the last portion because the syntax is throwing me off and I can't follow it yet?
Rock, You have my permission to use any portion (or all) of a blog I've submitted on your site, provided that the original intention remains intact (don't put words in my mouth -- I usually choke!) and a byline or notation stating authorship is all that I'd request. Gotta keep everyone honest, you know....
And I would be happy to do a blog-entry for you. Let me know how you would like to handle the task.
Lynn,
(1)
I concede that my sayings re: indians-vs-europeans were way too over-simplified and produced grossly unsatisfactory picture of the colonization period.
but - let me point - the purpose of my saying was to emphasize (for dear paz) the difference between :
a) a family coming to North American continent to settle 200 years ago
and b) a family immigrating to United States of America (or Canada) today.
- those are very different situations.
(2)
hispanic work ethics
are you pretending you don't understand? You claim that hispanics bring work ethics to USA. Listen, the last time I checked, mexicans or other hispanics were not renowned for having high work ethics. Germans, japanese, protestants - yes, but not mexicans. Americans can bring work ethics to Mexico, but not vice versa.
You think I am cynical? Welcome to correct version of reality. (unlike your politically correct version).
(3)
religion
You cheer hispanics bringing religion to USA. My point is that USA is already the most religious society in the developed world, to the point that american religiousity started eating into common sense (evolution bashing, for example).
Do you guys need even more religion?
(4)
hispanic influence on US - to what end
I concede - the question was, mmm, vague.
So: let me re-ask:
There are many hispanic countries, most of them doesn't look very attractive - poverty, corruption, etc
and there is only one America - the locomotive of progress for the whole humanity (since WWII).
Why do you want to risk the only America we have by subjecting it to "hispanic influence" ?
.
Lynn said:
Native culture was about subsistence, independent living while celebrating and paying homage to their deities. Natives did not have the manufactured weapons to fight soldiers carrying guns because the soldiers were not of their world.
Lynn, may I bring to your attention the following booK:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813338638/102-0454695-5849748?v=glance&n=283155
(I did read a better book on the subject, but I cannot find it now, sorry...)
Hi Igor. On Question #2, Hispanic work ethics, I wasn't sure if you were just venting or were seriously asking a question. Sorry but I needed clarification there.
Question #2, Hispanic work ethics
I have to ask where it is that you've "checked" on Hispanic work ethics? My impression is that you have no substantiation to back your statement, so I want to call you on it, okay? Would you please provide some information to defend your statement? I have no idea where you could be obtaining your information from.
The Hispanic work force has proven to be helpful to the US in a number of ways, but Hispanics, in particular the aliens, have been exploited in the work force. Illegals are being used and actually victimized by employers here in USA because the Hispanics will work harder and longer hours than their American counterparts. Many jobs are manual labor, seasonal labor, and wages are low. Yet, to earn money, Hispanics will receive less wages and no benefits to have wages. Yes, some of the Hispanic work force is here illegally, but they are being exploited for their ability to work -- and to work hard. (Yes, I'm aware of the numerous issues surrounding the illegal immigrants here in the USA but it's a whole different topic, imho.)
Here are a few U.S. Government stats to examine. I gathered them up just-for-you (but I'm too lazy to html-code the urls, so do a cut-and-paste, please). Perhaps looking at some of these numbers will help you understand the Hispanics are here to get the American Dollar. Second to that is their interest and desire to live the "American Dream"....to prosper. And to be prosperous, they MUST work.
There are more than 17.5 million Hispanic workers in America. (There are 22 million total foreign born workers in the labor force in 2005.)
Hispanics comprise 12.6 percent of the American workforce.
In 2005, foreign-born workers made up about 15 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force age 16 and over. The unemployment rate for the foreign born fell to 4.6 percent in 2005, down from 5.5 percent in the prior year. Over the year, the jobless rate of the native born declined from 5.5 to 5.2 percent.
About 49 percent of the foreign-born labor force was Hispanic, and 22 percent was Asian, compared with about 7 and 1 percent, respectively, of the native-born labor force. One out of 5 of the foreign-born labor force was white, compared with nearly 4 out of 5 of the native-born labor force.
In terms of educational attainment, 28 percent of the foreign-born labor force 25 years old and over had not completed high school in 2005, compared with about 7 percent of the native-born labor force. About equal proportions of both the foreign and native born had a bachelor's degree and higher (31 and 33 percent, respectively).
On a regional basis, the foreign-born share of the labor force ranged from about a quarter in the West to 7 percent in the Midwest.
Management, professional, and related occupations made up the largest share of employment for both foreign-born and native-born workers in 2005, 26 and 36 percent, respectively. Foreign-born workers were more likely than their native-born counterparts to be employed in several service occupations, including food preparation and serving related occupations, and building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations. Foreign-born workers also were more likely than the native born to be employed in farming, fishing, and forestry; construction and extraction; and production occupations. The foreign born were less likely than the native born to work in sales and office occupations.
In 2005, the median usual weekly earnings of foreign-born full-time wage and salary workers were $511, compared with $677 for the native born. Among men, median earnings were $523 per week for the foreign born, compared with $760 for the native born; the median for foreign-born women was $487, compared with $596 for the native born. As with the native born, the earnings of foreign-born workers increased with education. The foreign born 25 years of age and over with less than a high school education earned $385 per week in 2005, while those with bachelor's degrees and higher earned 2-1/2 times as much--$960 a week.
REF: Stats available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
The link for labor force numbers: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ep/labor.force/clfa0414.txt
Employment status of the foreign-born and native-born populations http://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.t06.htm
Question #3: Religion
Wow, we really are religious, aren't we? United States has a greater number of religious groups than any other country in the world. The June 1, 2004 U.S. Census Bureau estimate of total Americans: 293,382,953. Out of that total, 75% are Christian, 13% are Non-religious/secular, and 1% practice Judaism. Looks like America has got religion. At least that's what the statistics show. But these numbers are nothing more than the religious classification that people claim when asked to identify their religion. Not all people citing a religion actually follow that religion. That's why we have laws here....to keep all of those religious people honest!
A Gallop poll in 2002 shows that approx 50% of adult Americans had become alienated from religion.
Check this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
Here's a excellent chart that also shows how America views religion: http://www.pbs.org/now/society/religionstats.html
I say "Bring it on!" because America can certainly use more people who have strong family values, pride in workmanship, and good work ethics. Besides, I happen to like Fajitas and Burritos with my Coronas. Ole!!
You asked, "You think I am cynical? Welcome to correct version of reality. (unlike your politically correct version)."
ROTFL. No, Igor, your online persona comes off as being more angry and prejudiced but you try to pepper your statements with cynical remarks. Practice makes perfect, though, so keep trying! To be a good cynic, you must be analytical, know the subject, and have your facts straight. Then you can poke and prod and even finish off with excellent come-backs to bitch-slap the nay-sayers with. Without that climactic expectation of the true cynic, who is also a smart-ass, know-it-all, genius, the nay-sayer doesn't get his due. It's almost as though that nay-sayer gets ripped-off. So, to be a true cynic, it's always best to end the cynical commentary with an appropriate barb. Ah, the fine art of cynical conversation.
My mantra: "A cynic is seldom, if ever, proven wrong." Little did you know, eh, Igor? ( She's not about being PC at all.... ) See ya around, next blog or so.
Igor, I went to the Amazon link (using Rock's click-thru....cha-ching!!) but did not see where that book aligns well with our discussion.
Come on....facts....not book title and blurb chases!!! This book appears to be about preserving culture for posterity's sake versus the order of change as time/eras influence a population. Namely, the subject of sociology.
Dayyyum Rock, where'd you find this statistical, analytical cynical woman?
Post a Comment