Illegal Immigration is the Work of the Devil

Post Reply New Topic

Jacob, I find your comments wrong and racist. Where in the world do you live and and what makes you believe that nonsense about Mexicans and Hawaiians. I know plenty of Hawaiians that would show evidence to the contrary.
BTW, I live near the border and find it much more tolerant than places dominated by "Whites". My son goes to a school where whites are a minority and they are much more tolerant and calming to him than the other school he was placed in. If they take over, they're welcome to it.

I guess by my previous comment, I've turned an assumption into a fire of accusation.

Both are right: the land WAS stolen from the Native Americans by force, manipulations, trickery and lies, treaties that were not abided by, by the purposeful spreading of smallpox (now defined when other countries do it as biological terrorism), by burning them alive while still asleep in their tents and bayonetting them when they ran out screaming (men, women, and children), and BY ARMS. They continued to slaughter Indians until as late as the 60s and had government issued tanks and men with guns walking the streets of the Pine Ridge Reservation until as late as the 1970s.
I know Native American history fairly extensively, though history is always written from the perspective of the winners.

Manifest Destiny was a belief system that was common in this country and freely spoken of at the time. It was commonly and publicly believed that it was the destiny from Providence (God) of the Anglo-Saxon race to spread from ocean to ocean as they commonly believed all other races were inferior (ie. the Indians, Mexicans, Africans (then slaves), though since in today's world and context it doesn't sound so nice, it isn't usually mentioned anymore in "politely revised" history books. President Polk, who initiated the orders the invade Mexican terrority during this time period was himself a subscriber of Manifest Destiny. It was publicly used as justification for their military actions with the public, whom were to feel proud of their race, heritage and military accomplishment of expanding borders.

The Democratic Review, 1845: "It is our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence (GOD) for the free development of our own multiplying millions."

The Congressional Globe, 1847: "We must march from Texas straight to the Pacific ocean, and be bounded only by its roaring wave. It is the destiny of the white race, it is the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race."

There are many more quotes from other popular newspapers of the time that reflect popular opinion and many more of Congressman and military leaders to the same effect, but you get the idea.

And by the way, Mexicans are NOT descendants of the Native Americans. They are a seperate race, with different ancestors and completely different culture. There are still many, many Native Americans around, contrary to what many believe, who try to keep their own history and culture alive in their communities. They are the most under represented and ignored minority group in America, and the poorest minority per capita, despite what you may hear currently about Casinos. The Pine Ridge area of North Dakota (the one mentioned from my previous post) is the poorest county in the United States. It was originally run and set up, as all reservations first were, in the same manner as concentration camps.
There were not originally supposed to be any survivors.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8[/youtube] NAFTA Superhighway http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Well, we can debate the finer points of Indian Degradation in the US but I just want to make a few comments, Newaspie. Mexicans and Indians are two different ethnic groups, yes, but not separate races per say. Mexican is a nationality. Mestizo is the name of the mixture between Indian and Spaniard and other sundry European colonists. There are still large pockets of Indians in Mexico and any American would call them Mexicans. But that's another topic.
The numbers of Indians up here are dwindled.
I also will slightly disagree with your comments about reservations. That's liberal revisionism talking. The reservations weren't all about getting rid of Indians. That's what the massacres, lynch mobs and Termination Act were for. Reservations were a compromise for 19th century "Indian Lovers". One notable Indian Lover was General John Bidwell who sought to curb the outright hunting and slaughter of Indians in California by proposing reservations as early as 1850. It's hard to fathom marching 250+ Indians 100 miles through a valley into the Coastal Mountains as "benevolent", but compared to the majority opinion, it was.
The reservations were about getting Indians out of the way in a pseudo-legalistic manner.

well, different ethnic group.. the point is the Indians of North America were not Mexicans. And I'm sure there ARE some Indians in Mexico, just as there are Mexicans in the United States...

And the original reservations were closer to concentration camps. They were surrounded by fences and armed guards, not allowed to leave and if they tried to were shot, and were not given appropriate food, clothing or shelter and very large numbers of them died of starvation, malnutrition, disease, and from the elements as well as from mistreatment and violence. Those are facts, not revisionist history. The lighthearted "oh it wasn't THAT bad" is the revisionist history.

Some did advocate reservations as a sanctuary for the Indians, and I do not doubt they had those that argued in their favor as well, but his vision of what he felt would be their sanctuary is not the reality of what was setup by the government.

In most cases the acts I mentioned were NOT performed by individuals, such as in lynchings, but by military and government sanctioned groups that were intent on ridding the nation of the "Indian Problem".

There are more than some Indians in Mexico.
You're missing my point about reservations. I said that reservations were the liberal alternative to what was going to happen to Indians. Again, we are looking at this from its historical context. Everything in our minds rightly says, reservations=evil. However, I'm correcting the idea that reservations were meant to annihilate Indians.

I'm sure there are plenty of Indians in Mexico: but your AGAIN missing MY original point: that Indians are not Mexicans, period.

I agree - the reservations were setup to be an alternative to simply continuing to outright slaughter.

I cannot comment directly on the man you speak of because I have not studied his life and actions specifically but am speaking of treatment on reservations in general. Each reservation and Indian group has, of course, it's own individual history. There are even a couple of reservations that were started by the Indians themselves who fought for recognition of the lands they still inhabited. I am speaking of their treatment in general. Most of the reservations were originally setup in a terribly inhumane manner. And the fact that there may have been a few Indian lovers around, doesn't change that.

Usually the US idea of "bad Indians" were those that would not "assimilate", or act, speak, talk, dress, live, believe in the Christian God, as other settlers of European ancestory. Basicly they were told to give up their entire way of life and blend in with everyone else and were treated very harshly if they did not.