Posted on 01/17/2004 10:17:12 PM PST by Cyropaedia
"It was so much easier to say all this before...
Are Martians attacking us or something?? I truly do not understand this statement.
The cultural values, norms and priorities of every society on earth reflect those who comprise that society. Those who pretend that all people are interchangeable do but project their hostility towards the realities of the human experience; their intolerance towards those who want to preserve their own legacies, etc..
As I wrote after the line you quoted:
Those Conservatives who are intimidated into silence by the hissing venom of indoctrinated Leftists, spraying the air as they call you "nativists," "racists," and "xenophobic," are a major part of the problem. We will either face this problem, now, or your grandchildren will have no place in the land of their forebears.
The unique qualities of America--as opposed to qualities that we really do have with many other peoples--reflect the unique nature of the early settlers, and their experiences in overcoming adversity, and building new societies from the ground up. These are reflected in their adversion to dependence on Government; in the understanding of the function of Government, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence, and in their respect for diversity--true diversity, not the degrading vision of the modern Left--where we have very different priorities and social values from State to State, while acknowledging what we also have in common, under the broad umbrella of the Constitution.
William Flax
Where did the early settlers come from and what were some of the influences on their "overcoming adversity" and "building new societies"... i.e. what were their ethnic identies??
The greatest numbers came from England, Scotland, with lesser numbers from the Netherlands, Ireland, France (Huguenots), etc.. The principal influences on their overcoming adversity, etc., were in their own strengths of character, rather than any fixed ideas they brought with them--although many were sustained by a strong religious faith (not necessarily the same faith). They were not representative of the over-all populations from which they came so much as of people with particular, rather hard nosed traits that stood out among those older populations. The building of societies from the ground up reflected the fact that they came in relatively small numbers--those boats in that era couldn't carry that many at one time, for that matter--and had to clear a wilderness, and set up their own social institutions. (It was a slow trip, and uneconomic in the 17th Century, for any of the mother countries to even try to interfere too effectively in what they were doing, anyway.)
It was when this pattern changed, dramatically, with the French & Indian War, and the greater British military presence, and attempts at a new level of control, etc., that the new breed which grew out of a lot of parallel settler experiences, among some very differently oriented settlers, reacted with the American Revolution, and the birth of a true American ethnicity.
This is a very fragmentary outline, but it will suggest my drift.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
O.K., here comes the demagoguery. It should have been obvious to you, that I was addressing the origin of the group that came to define American at the time of the Revolution. Those whom you call "Native Americans"--an insult to the Indians, because they had their own very distinct ethnicities (plural) at the same time, and American is a European word coined to refer to the original white settlers--in many cases fought with great bravery and suffering to preserve their ways and values from the encroaching "American" development. That they lost is no reason to deny them their actual identities (again plural).
With regard to the Negroes, present largely in the South, they did indeed contribute a great deal to the developing Southern culture of the times and those immediately subsequent; and to this day are a part of that culture. But it is not accurate to suggest that they were really considered a part of the American ethnicity at the time. Whether you like it or not, they were not, both because of the racial aspect, and the fact that initially most of them were in bondage. But certainly, their interest today is one as the hand, to use Booker T. Washington's metaphor, with their White neighbors, over this question of immigration. They are the immediate victims of open borders; the jobs being taken, taken primarily from the least skilled (and least able to defend themselves) class of their race.
The Spanish were not found in any significant numbers in the original 13 States. There was an old Spanish culture in Florida, which was acquired in 1819; and which like those of the Indians, must be considered a rival ethnicity prior to that acquisition. Having never been to Florida, I do not know if it has survived to this day, or in what form--as opposed to the new Cuban-American group in South Florida--but they are not one group. While we respect both, they are distinct in their historic development, as would be other Spanish language ethnic groups, encountered with the annexation of Texas and in the Mexican War and its aftermath.
There are also old minority groups from Northern Europe, that have maintained a certain ethnic separation, such as the Amish.
No one is demeaning any of these people. But none of these other ethnic groups, to which you refer, or the broader spectrum to which I refer, had a hand in setting up the entity known as the United States of America, from a compact of the 13 sovereignties, recognized in the Treaty of Paris, which we call the Constitution. That Constitution reflects the values discussed in the Declaration of Independence; and those values--and the unique slant on them--reflect the experiences of those whom I described earlier.
William Flax
I'll make sure my girlfriend knows that being called a "Native American" is an insult.
The Spanish were not found in any significant numbers in the original 13 States.
Really?? Check your history about Georgia.
And just slightly beyond the 13 original colonies... who do you think Louisiana belonged to before the French??? Who explored the Missouri river first... I'll give you a hint their is a rare American half dollar from 1935 dedicated to him... and just slighlty beyond that, where did the names of half the states come from as well as the Ocean to the west?? And who was first to try and controll the Missispi??
And what nations do you think donated to the American rebels during the Revolutionary War??? Russia?? No. China?? Wrong again. And what nation was one of the first to identify the US as an independent nation???
Spain and the Independence of the United States
" The role of Spain in the birth of the United States is a little known and little understood aspect of U.S. independence. Through actual fighting, provision of supplies, and money, Spain helped the young British colonies succeed in becoming an independent nation. Soldiers were recruited from all over the Spanish empire, from Spain itself and from throughout Spanish America. Many died fighting British soldiers and their allies in Central America, the Caribbean, along the Mississippi River from New Orleans to St. Louis and as far north as Michigan, along the Gulf Coast to Mobile and Pensacola, as well as in Europe.
Based on primary research in the archives of Spain, this book is about United States history at its very inception, placing the war in its broadest international context. In short, the information in this book should provide a clearer understanding of the independence of the United States, correct a longstanding omission in its history, and enrich its patrimony. It will appeal to anyone interested in the history of the Revolutionary War and in Spain's role in the development of the Americas. "
Having allies is very important. But allies do not become part of your nation. You will not find me hostile to Spain, France or any other country on the face of the earth, except at times when they are hostile to us. But there is a unique American ethnicity, which grew out of the settlers of the original 13 colonies--each of which had its own separate ethnicity, by the way--and it is that unique American nation, whose values are represented in our common doctuments.
Those Spanish and French settlers in areas later acquired are also rooted citizens of equally sovereign American States. I do not disparage them in the slightest; and have always opposed attempts to impose uniform value systems on the several States. But there is one uniform value system, that is limited to those matters agreed upon in 1776, recognized in 1783, and codified in 1787 to 1789. And that is the fundament of Americanism, as distinct from Virginianism, Massachusettsism, etc..
I would never suggest that the rooted, old settler Spanish or French elements in the regions they settled first, need to adopt to the predominant Anglo-Saxon culture, other than in a recognition of the origins of their being a Federal system in the United States. It should not be threatening to any of them. But as they seek respect, they need to accord it. The fact that we have old diversity, does not entitle the Left to destroy any of our ethnic values, nor change the ongoing character of the American Union; and that is precisely what is at issue with the tremendous increase in Third World immigration.
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.