Posts
Stone Age Columbus - programme summary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml
Who were the first people in North America? From where did they come? How did they arrive? The prehistory of the Americas has been widely studied. Over 70 years a consensus became so established that dissenters felt uneasy challenging it. Yet in 2001, genetics, anthropology and a few shards of flint combined to overturn the accepted facts and to push back one of the greatest technological changes that the Americas have ever seen by over five millennia.
The accepted version of the first Americans starts with a flint spearhead unearthed at Clovis, New Mexico, in 1933. Dated by the mammoth skeleton it lay beside to 11,500 years ago (11.5kya), it was distinctive because it had two faces, where flakes had been knapped away from a core flint. The find sparked a wave of similar reports, all dating from around the same period. There seemed to be nothing human before Clovis. Whoever those incomers were around 9,500BC, they appeared to have had a clean start. And the Clovis point was their icon - across 48 states.
An icon that was supremely effective: the introduction of the innovative spearpoint coincided with a mass extinction of the continent's megafauna. Not only the mammoth, but the giant armadillo, giant sloth and great black bear all disappeared soon after the Clovis point - and the hunters who used it - arrived on the scene.
But from where? With temperatures much colder than today and substantial polar ice sheets, sea levels were much lower. Asia and America were connected by a land bridge where now there's the open water of the Bering Strait. The traditional view of American prehistory was that Clovis people travelled by land from Asia.
This version was so accepted that few archaeologists even bothered to look for artefacts from periods before 10,000BC. But when Jim Adavasio continued to dig below the Clovis layer at his dig near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he found blades and blade cores dating back to 16,000BC. His findings were dismissed as erroneous; too astonishing to be credible. The Clovis consensus had too many reputations behind it to evaporate easily. Some archaeologists who backed Adavasio's conclusions with other similar data were accused of making radiocarbon dating errors or even of planting finds.
Decisive evidence would have to come from an independent arena. Douglas Wallace studies mitochondrial DNA, part of the human chromosomes that is passed unchanged from mother to daughter. It only varies when mistakes occur in the replication of the genetic code. Conveniently for Wallace's work (piecing together a global history of migration of native peoples) these mistakes crop up at a quite regular rate. The technique has allowed Wallace to map the geographical ancestry of all the Native American peoples back to Siberia and northeast Asia.
The route of the Clovis hypothesis was right. The date, however, was wrong - out by up to 20,000 years. Wallace's migration history showed waves of incomers. The Clovis people were clearly not the first humans to set foot across North America.
Dennis Stanford went back to first principles to investigate Clovis afresh, looking at tools from the period along the route Clovis was assumed to have taken from Siberia via the Bering Strait to Alaska. The large bifaced Clovis point was not in the archaeological record. Instead the tools used microblades, numerous small flint flakes lined up along the spear shaft to make its head.
Wallace's DNA work suggested migration from Asia to America but the Clovis trail contradicted it. Bruce Bradley stepped in to help solve this dichotomy, bringing with him one particular skill: flintknapping and the ability to read flint tools for their most intimate secrets.
He spotted the similarity in production method between the Clovis point and tools made by the Solutrean neolithic (Stone Age) culture in southwest France. At this stage his idea was pure hypothesis, but could the first Americans have been European?
The Solutreans were a remarkably society, the most innovative and adaptive of the time. They were among the first to discover the value of heat treating flints to increase strength. Bradley was keen to discover if Solutrean flintknapping styles matched Clovis techniques. A trawl through the unattractive flint offcuts in the storerooms of a French museum convinced him of the similarities, even though five thousand kilometres lay between their territories.
The divide was more than just distance; it crossed five thousand years as well. No matter the similarities between the two cultures, the possibility of a parallel technology developing by chance would have to be considered. More evidence emerged from an archaeological dig in Cactus Hill, Virginia. A bifaced flint point found there was dated to 16kya, far older than Clovis. Even more startling was its style. To flintknapper Bruce Bradley's eye, the Cactus Hill flint was a technological midpoint between the French Solutrean style and the Clovis points dating five millennia later. It seemed there is no great divide in time. The Solutrean flint methods evolved into Clovis.
If time could be discounted, Bradley's critics pointed to an obstacle that was hardly going to go away: crossing the Atlantic Ocean in small open boats. How could Stone Age people have made such an epic journey, especially when the Ice Age maximum would have filled the Atlantic with icebergs.
Dennis Stanford returned to his earlier hunch, looking for clues among the Arctic Eskimo peoples. Despite the influx of modern technologies, he was heartened to discover that traditional techniques endured. Clothing makers in Barrow, Alaska, recognised some Solutrean bone needles he showed them as typical of their own. The caribou skin clothing the Inuit still choose to wear could equally have been made by people in 16,000BC. And for Eskimo peoples the Arctic is not a desert - but a source of plentiful sea food. If the Solutreans had the Clovis point it would have made a formidable harpoon weapon to ensure a food supply. Would modern Eskimo ever consider a five thousand kilometre journey across the Atlantic?
The answer it seems is yes - they have undertaken similar journeys many times.. Most encouraging was the realisation that Inuit people today rely on traditional boat building techniques. 'Unbreakable' plastic breaks in the unceasing cold temperatures whereas boats of wood, sealskin and whale oil are resilient and easily maintained. The same materials would have been available to Solutrean boat builders. Even if the Stone Age Europeans could make those boats, would it survive an Atlantic crossing?
Stanford believes the boats' flimsiness is deceptive. With the Atlantic full of ice floes it would be quite possible for paddlers in open boats to travel along the edges, always having a safe place to haul out upon if the weather turned in.
All this evidence was still essentially circumstantial, making the Solutrean adventure possible not proven. Douglas Wallace's DNA history bore fruit once more. In the DNA profile of the Ichigua Native American tribe he identified a lineage that was clearly European in origin, too old to be due to genetic mixing since Columbus' discovery of the New World. Instead it dated to Solutrean times. Wallace's genetic timelines show the Ice Age prompted a number of migrations from Europe to America. It looks highly likely that the Solutreans were one.
The impact of this new prehistory on Native Americans could be grave. They usually consider themselves to be Asian in origin; and to have been subjugated by Europeans after 1492. If they too were partly Europeans, the dividing lines would be instantly blurred. Dr Joallyn Archambault of the American Indian Programme of the Smithsonian Institute offers a positive interpretation, however. Venturing across huge bodies of water, she says, is a clear demonstration of the courage and creativity of the Native Americans' ancestors. Bruce Bradley agrees. He feels his Solutrean Ice Age theory takes into consideration the abilities of people to embrace new places, adding, "To ignore this possibility ignores the humanity of people 20,000 years ago."
Friday, October 12, 2007
Interesting news
Evidence grows N. America's first colonizers were European
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news168.htm
LONDON — Stone Age Europeans were the first trans-Atlantic sailors. Columbus and the Vikings were mere ocean-crossing latecomers, according to a leading American anthropologist. Dennis Stanford, of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, says Neolithic fishermen and hunters sailed the Atlantic in tiny boats made of animal skins 18,000 years ago and colonized the eastern United States.
Such a journey would represent one of the most astonishing migrations ever undertaken — the Earth was then in the grip of the Ice Age and much of its high northern and southern latitudes were desolate wastelands blasted by storms and blizzards.
On the other hand, much of the planet's water was locked in icecaps and glaciers, and sea levels would have been much lower than today's. The edges of the continents would have extended further into the oceans.
"The gap between Europe and America was greatly reduced," Stanford said. "It could have been quite feasible for fishermen and whale and seal hunters to sail around the southern rim of the packs of sea-ice that covered the North Atlantic and reach land around the Banks of Newfoundland."
Stanford's theory — outlined at a recent archaeology conference in Santa Fe, N.M. — is based on discoveries indicating ancient American people were culturally far more like the Neolithic tribes of France, Spain and Ireland than the Asian people whom scientists had previously thought to be the sole prehistoric settlers of North America.
Stanford also points out although modern Native Americans possess DNA similar to that of Asians, they also carry some variants found only in European people. This genetic input could only be explained by accepting Stone Age people could sail ocean-going boats, he said.
"We now know that human beings learned to sail 50,000 years before the present," he said. "Mankind settled in Australia then and it was not linked by any land bridge to Asia. It could only have been reached by boat. Clearly, we had mastered sailing tens of thousands of years before America was colonized, so we should not be surprised by the idea that people took boat trips across the Atlantic 18,000 years ago."
The theory that prehistoric Europeans colonized America was first put forward in the 1950s by archaeologist Frank Hibben, but was discredited by evidence supporting the notion the continent was populated 20,000 to 15,000 years ago by Asian migrants who walked across the land bridge then linking Siberia with Alaska, and who then trekked south through the continent.
Stanford does not disagree Asian folk colonized ancient America, but argues current genetic and archaeological evidence shows an influx of Europeans must also have taken place. The prime candidates for these migrants are the Solutrean people who lived in Spain 23,000 to 18,000 years ago and later colonized parts of France and Ireland.
They designed and made beautifully crafted fluted stone blades that bore a striking similarity to those made by the Clovis people who lived in America 11,000 years ago. Like the Clovis, the Solutreans made stone scrapers to prepare hides and kept stores of stone implements, buried in red ocher, round the countryside. These ancient Spaniards therefore must have been among the first New World settlers, Stanford says. Native Americans are Iberian, not Siberian, in origin.
The theory's main problem stems from the fact an Atlantic crossing in tiny Ice Age boats would have been an awesome undertaking. However, Stanford argues it would have been a less arduous undertaking than might be expected. "If a storm arrived, they would have camped on an ice island until the weather got better. Eventually they would have drifted west until they reach eastern America," he said.
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news168.htm
LONDON — Stone Age Europeans were the first trans-Atlantic sailors. Columbus and the Vikings were mere ocean-crossing latecomers, according to a leading American anthropologist. Dennis Stanford, of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, says Neolithic fishermen and hunters sailed the Atlantic in tiny boats made of animal skins 18,000 years ago and colonized the eastern United States.
Such a journey would represent one of the most astonishing migrations ever undertaken — the Earth was then in the grip of the Ice Age and much of its high northern and southern latitudes were desolate wastelands blasted by storms and blizzards.
On the other hand, much of the planet's water was locked in icecaps and glaciers, and sea levels would have been much lower than today's. The edges of the continents would have extended further into the oceans.
"The gap between Europe and America was greatly reduced," Stanford said. "It could have been quite feasible for fishermen and whale and seal hunters to sail around the southern rim of the packs of sea-ice that covered the North Atlantic and reach land around the Banks of Newfoundland."
Stanford's theory — outlined at a recent archaeology conference in Santa Fe, N.M. — is based on discoveries indicating ancient American people were culturally far more like the Neolithic tribes of France, Spain and Ireland than the Asian people whom scientists had previously thought to be the sole prehistoric settlers of North America.
Stanford also points out although modern Native Americans possess DNA similar to that of Asians, they also carry some variants found only in European people. This genetic input could only be explained by accepting Stone Age people could sail ocean-going boats, he said.
"We now know that human beings learned to sail 50,000 years before the present," he said. "Mankind settled in Australia then and it was not linked by any land bridge to Asia. It could only have been reached by boat. Clearly, we had mastered sailing tens of thousands of years before America was colonized, so we should not be surprised by the idea that people took boat trips across the Atlantic 18,000 years ago."
The theory that prehistoric Europeans colonized America was first put forward in the 1950s by archaeologist Frank Hibben, but was discredited by evidence supporting the notion the continent was populated 20,000 to 15,000 years ago by Asian migrants who walked across the land bridge then linking Siberia with Alaska, and who then trekked south through the continent.
Stanford does not disagree Asian folk colonized ancient America, but argues current genetic and archaeological evidence shows an influx of Europeans must also have taken place. The prime candidates for these migrants are the Solutrean people who lived in Spain 23,000 to 18,000 years ago and later colonized parts of France and Ireland.
They designed and made beautifully crafted fluted stone blades that bore a striking similarity to those made by the Clovis people who lived in America 11,000 years ago. Like the Clovis, the Solutreans made stone scrapers to prepare hides and kept stores of stone implements, buried in red ocher, round the countryside. These ancient Spaniards therefore must have been among the first New World settlers, Stanford says. Native Americans are Iberian, not Siberian, in origin.
The theory's main problem stems from the fact an Atlantic crossing in tiny Ice Age boats would have been an awesome undertaking. However, Stanford argues it would have been a less arduous undertaking than might be expected. "If a storm arrived, they would have camped on an ice island until the weather got better. Eventually they would have drifted west until they reach eastern America," he said.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
If he did this, does this mean nooses are made by latinos?
Arrest made in connection to racist graffiti
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 10:10 AM AT
CBC News
Fredericton police have made an arrest in connection to racist graffiti appearing on posters at the city's universities.
Police said they've arrested a man they believe to be connected to two incidents of vandalism at the University of New Brunswick.
Posters were defaced at the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University last week.
The racist graffiti appeared on advertisements for a fundraiser to help bring St. Thomas University student Andrew Saa Gborgbor's mother to Canada from Sierra Leone.
The door to the University of New Brunswick's forestry and geology building was also vandalized, said police.
Video surveillance footage was turned over to police by the university, said Const. Ralph Currie. The video depicted a non-Caucasian male defacing the posters on the campus, he said.
Some of the posters had slogans referring to white supremacy written on them.
Chao Marshall Wang, 40, has been charged with mischief and damage to property. He will remain in police custody until his appearance in provincial court on Tuesday.
With files from the Canadian Press
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 10:10 AM AT
CBC News
Fredericton police have made an arrest in connection to racist graffiti appearing on posters at the city's universities.
Police said they've arrested a man they believe to be connected to two incidents of vandalism at the University of New Brunswick.
Posters were defaced at the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University last week.
The racist graffiti appeared on advertisements for a fundraiser to help bring St. Thomas University student Andrew Saa Gborgbor's mother to Canada from Sierra Leone.
The door to the University of New Brunswick's forestry and geology building was also vandalized, said police.
Video surveillance footage was turned over to police by the university, said Const. Ralph Currie. The video depicted a non-Caucasian male defacing the posters on the campus, he said.
Some of the posters had slogans referring to white supremacy written on them.
Chao Marshall Wang, 40, has been charged with mischief and damage to property. He will remain in police custody until his appearance in provincial court on Tuesday.
With files from the Canadian Press
Man charged for burning flag
Man cited for burning Mexican flag
Web Posted: 10/09/2007 10:11 PM CDT
Joe CongerKENS 5 Eyewitness News
It caused some controversy, but it was supposed to. Now, one man is headed to municipal court for burning a Mexican flag in protest in front of the Alamo.
The city is charging 46-year old David Bohmfalk with burning without a permit, even though no one gives permits to burn a flag.
"I was raised to respect my country," Bohmfalk said.
All the rallies and talk of amnesty for undocumented immigrants in May 2006 lit the fires of patriotism for Bohmfalk, he said.
"I just got angry," he said. "I decided I had to do something, make my statement, and that's what I did."
Bohmfalk had his own protest in front of a building known for revolution, where Davy Crockett and James Bowie made a stand. So did Bohmfalk but he used a lighter instead of gunfighter.
Park police cited Bohmfalk for illegal burning of rubbish, even it was a Mexican flag he set ablaze.
"Because of what it's made out of, it took a little while to burn it. It took me two minutes, but I got it lit," Bohmfalk
Authorities say his actions left some of the Mexican nationals in the Alamo crowd feeling burned. However, Bohmfalk's attorney, Jason Jakob, says, freedom of speech is Bohmfalk's constitutional right.
"My client felt so strongly, and exercised protest, by burning that flag," Jakob said.
Bohmfalk says while he was detained by police, he was harassed, his life was threatened, and he was even assaulted by some tourists who spit on him. Ironically, all these offenses are punishable by law. Jakob says flag burning is not.
"In America, every day we see people burning the American flag and it's become desensitized," Jakob said. "If we can allow that, we can certainly say that the Mexican flag can be burned."
As a former Texas police chief and military veteran, Bohmfalk says he knows his rights, and is fighting for them.
"Why should a foreign flag get any better protection than the American flag?" he said.
The city has not returned calls for comment. As for Bohmfalk's right to a speedy trial, that's been delayed as well. His trial has been reset three times.
Web Posted: 10/09/2007 10:11 PM CDT
Joe CongerKENS 5 Eyewitness News
It caused some controversy, but it was supposed to. Now, one man is headed to municipal court for burning a Mexican flag in protest in front of the Alamo.
The city is charging 46-year old David Bohmfalk with burning without a permit, even though no one gives permits to burn a flag.
"I was raised to respect my country," Bohmfalk said.
All the rallies and talk of amnesty for undocumented immigrants in May 2006 lit the fires of patriotism for Bohmfalk, he said.
"I just got angry," he said. "I decided I had to do something, make my statement, and that's what I did."
Bohmfalk had his own protest in front of a building known for revolution, where Davy Crockett and James Bowie made a stand. So did Bohmfalk but he used a lighter instead of gunfighter.
Park police cited Bohmfalk for illegal burning of rubbish, even it was a Mexican flag he set ablaze.
"Because of what it's made out of, it took a little while to burn it. It took me two minutes, but I got it lit," Bohmfalk
Authorities say his actions left some of the Mexican nationals in the Alamo crowd feeling burned. However, Bohmfalk's attorney, Jason Jakob, says, freedom of speech is Bohmfalk's constitutional right.
"My client felt so strongly, and exercised protest, by burning that flag," Jakob said.
Bohmfalk says while he was detained by police, he was harassed, his life was threatened, and he was even assaulted by some tourists who spit on him. Ironically, all these offenses are punishable by law. Jakob says flag burning is not.
"In America, every day we see people burning the American flag and it's become desensitized," Jakob said. "If we can allow that, we can certainly say that the Mexican flag can be burned."
As a former Texas police chief and military veteran, Bohmfalk says he knows his rights, and is fighting for them.
"Why should a foreign flag get any better protection than the American flag?" he said.
The city has not returned calls for comment. As for Bohmfalk's right to a speedy trial, that's been delayed as well. His trial has been reset three times.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tom Tancredo rips Bush
Tancredo slams Bush over immigration
By Kevin Landrigan
The Nashua Telegraph (NH),
September 25, 2007 http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleAID=/20070925/NEWS08/309250087/-1/news08
Nashua -- Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo, of Colorado, said President Bush's failure to enforce existing immigration laws is 'despicable' and leading to a domestic crisis.
If elected, Tancredo, 61, said he'd ask Congress to require the withdrawal of Social Security taxes from all employee wages to make it easier for the federal government to track and deport illegal aliens.
'If we don't like our immigration laws, if we think they are wrong, repeal them. If we don't think they are wrong, enforce them,' Tancredo said during an interview with The Telegraph editorial board at Nashua High School South.
'Don't keep ignoring our laws, which this president has been doing, which is despicable,' Tancredo said.
To Tancredo, Bush's failure to crack down more on employers who employ undocumented workers and to maintain border security amounts to a high crime. 'If he could be impeached for dereliction of duty, a bill could be brought. Unfortunately, that is not grounds,' Tancredo said.
'He has avoided dealing with this issue to a point where we are at a crisis, I believe, and it is just unconscionable.' A six-term congressman, Tancredo said illegal immigration has become the centerpiece of his campaign, due to the role it's played in rising health-care costs, availability of jobs and crime.
'It is the most serious domestic policy we face, it has enormous ramifications for America, legal or illegal immigration, period, because of the lack of assimilation that has occurred,' Tancredo said.
Employers need to increase the wages of the low-skill jobs instead of hiring illegal immigrants, Tancredo said. He insisted the private economy cost for such a move would be lower than the costs of educating and caring for those who are here illegally.
Tancredo said an illegal alien serving in the military should be placed on a path to citizenship, but all other undocumented citizens must return to their former home. 'I have compassion for people who have done it the right way,' Tancredo said.
On Iraq, Tancredo said after this November, U.S. combat forces should disengage from serving as that country's police force and redeploy much of its troops elsewhere in the Middle East. 'I think we'll have to be in Iraq proper, in the oil fields. The numbers I don't know yet,' said Tancredo who serves on the House International Affairs Committee.
Tancredo defended his statement on a Florida radio talk show in 2005 when he favored 'taking out' Muslim holy sites if he learned fundamentalist extremists used nuclear weapons to attacks the U.S. 'What can you do to create a deterrent? I put this out there as a proposal,' said Tancredo, adding he's received death threats in response to it. 'You have to think what is motivating them . . . I think they are acting because of a religious interpretation they have of Islam.' Dave Burgess, of Hudson, a member of The Telegraph Reader Advisory Network, asked if the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan were justified based on the terrorist attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, even though al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has not been captured. 'I think the response against the Taliban in Afghanistan was absolutely appropriate,' Tancredo responded. 'To call Iraq a response to 9-11 is inaccurate.'
A former junior high school teacher and federal education official, Tancredo said the U.S. role in public schools should be limited, the reason for his opposition to the federal No Child Left Behind law. Tancredo supports converting federal spending to education block grants for the state and taxpayer-financed vouchers that let parents pick the public, private or parochial school of their choice. 'I want to focus on the kid and not the system,' Tancredo added.
Consumers should be able to buy their own health insurance with the help of tax-free health savings accounts rather than get it primarily through their private employers, Tancredo said.
And he supports President Bush's threatened veto of the House-passed expansion of the Child Health Insurance Program for the states. After the interview, Tancredo spoke and then took questions from social studies students in the school auditorium.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Today, not yesterday
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776
It is my opinion that this is what can explain the abhorrence of American law and way of life is the complete lack of understanding of the suffrages and sacrifices of our fathers and forefathers.
What does an illegal immigrant understand or know about our history if they did not grow up here? Do not get me wrong, I do realize our schools have found it political correct to teach about our nations founding.
I see Columbus always thrown into the fray, but he did not found our nation. Discovery does not equate foundation. Our nation was not founded by the Conquistadors either. To be completely honest, neither did the British nor the French.
Our nation was created by those who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and all of the other signers of those documents founded this nation.
Did these men singly, or as a whole, journey to South America and Central America in hopes of conquest? In the answer being no, this in fact destroys most of the arguments thrown at us of why these militant illegal immigrants have for being in our nation. American citizens did not colonize South and Central America. Even the land of Aztlan does not belong to those who say they claim it. The Apache, Ute, Hopi, Navajo, Pueblo, and Zuni tribes which claimed these lands were not dragged to the lands of South and Central America and ejected. I do not deny that there should be pause and reflection of the actions of our country’s past in how these people were treated. If we as American citizens want to make up for the sins of those prior to us, many of which we today are not able to trace bloodlines back to, those actions do not involve the illegal immigrants of today.
Now back to our uninvited guests of today. Why do they not have respect of our laws or culture? They claim it is a racial issue, but how can that be true when America calls all people of all races citizens even before their arrival. If there is a race of people not in the United States today which can claim legal residence, I want to know who they are. If our nation was so against Hispanic way of life, why is our nation, especially the southwest, bearing names that are the same as our invaders of today? No, even that is untrue.
So if history is not against us and race is not, what claim do these people of today that are illegal immigrants have against us? Truly I want to know.
If we revisit their claims that over a hundred years ago someone took something from a family member of theirs, what stops all other people in the world from staking that claim? And how far back should we go? Should we restore the Roman Empire? The Pharaohs? The Czars? Which exact year should we roll all things back to? Perhaps the days of Moses. None of these are possible, nor are any of them fair or equal to the people of today.
Some blame the businesses for luring them here with promise of work, and they should be punished, but when we attempt to do that, they complain that they will lose the jobs they have. So which way is it there? If it is true that a business did lure them, why should that business remain untouched allowing the owners to make profit on their backs? Even when we attempt to punish those they blame for their ills, they scream at us.
I have addressed the issue of personal freedom and liberty in their homelands. If this is the fact of becoming an illegal immigrant here, they are cowards for not standing up to those who made life so bad they left. If it is arms they need, we American have plenty to lend or sell. I was challenged on this point before by someone saying that if my homeland became a place where I as a citizen faced imprisonment, torture, or death that I would run away. This for me and many I know is not true. I know many who would stand up with arms and tear down those who threaten our families. This too is cheap on its face to tell all of us that over 12 million people could not overthrow a government. Fidel Castro did it with less than 10,000.
So, none of these aforementioned arguments are valid.
Again, why do these people not respect our laws? It is honest to say they have not paid a price dear enough to earn their own freedoms to understand ours.
Any people who as a whole would come en masse and disrespect those who give them the coverage of their freedoms and liberties do not deserve the protections they receive.
It is here in the aspect of respect, honor, and understanding of our laws and culture which these people lack which forfeits their place here.
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776
It is my opinion that this is what can explain the abhorrence of American law and way of life is the complete lack of understanding of the suffrages and sacrifices of our fathers and forefathers.
What does an illegal immigrant understand or know about our history if they did not grow up here? Do not get me wrong, I do realize our schools have found it political correct to teach about our nations founding.
I see Columbus always thrown into the fray, but he did not found our nation. Discovery does not equate foundation. Our nation was not founded by the Conquistadors either. To be completely honest, neither did the British nor the French.
Our nation was created by those who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and all of the other signers of those documents founded this nation.
Did these men singly, or as a whole, journey to South America and Central America in hopes of conquest? In the answer being no, this in fact destroys most of the arguments thrown at us of why these militant illegal immigrants have for being in our nation. American citizens did not colonize South and Central America. Even the land of Aztlan does not belong to those who say they claim it. The Apache, Ute, Hopi, Navajo, Pueblo, and Zuni tribes which claimed these lands were not dragged to the lands of South and Central America and ejected. I do not deny that there should be pause and reflection of the actions of our country’s past in how these people were treated. If we as American citizens want to make up for the sins of those prior to us, many of which we today are not able to trace bloodlines back to, those actions do not involve the illegal immigrants of today.
Now back to our uninvited guests of today. Why do they not have respect of our laws or culture? They claim it is a racial issue, but how can that be true when America calls all people of all races citizens even before their arrival. If there is a race of people not in the United States today which can claim legal residence, I want to know who they are. If our nation was so against Hispanic way of life, why is our nation, especially the southwest, bearing names that are the same as our invaders of today? No, even that is untrue.
So if history is not against us and race is not, what claim do these people of today that are illegal immigrants have against us? Truly I want to know.
If we revisit their claims that over a hundred years ago someone took something from a family member of theirs, what stops all other people in the world from staking that claim? And how far back should we go? Should we restore the Roman Empire? The Pharaohs? The Czars? Which exact year should we roll all things back to? Perhaps the days of Moses. None of these are possible, nor are any of them fair or equal to the people of today.
Some blame the businesses for luring them here with promise of work, and they should be punished, but when we attempt to do that, they complain that they will lose the jobs they have. So which way is it there? If it is true that a business did lure them, why should that business remain untouched allowing the owners to make profit on their backs? Even when we attempt to punish those they blame for their ills, they scream at us.
I have addressed the issue of personal freedom and liberty in their homelands. If this is the fact of becoming an illegal immigrant here, they are cowards for not standing up to those who made life so bad they left. If it is arms they need, we American have plenty to lend or sell. I was challenged on this point before by someone saying that if my homeland became a place where I as a citizen faced imprisonment, torture, or death that I would run away. This for me and many I know is not true. I know many who would stand up with arms and tear down those who threaten our families. This too is cheap on its face to tell all of us that over 12 million people could not overthrow a government. Fidel Castro did it with less than 10,000.
So, none of these aforementioned arguments are valid.
Again, why do these people not respect our laws? It is honest to say they have not paid a price dear enough to earn their own freedoms to understand ours.
Any people who as a whole would come en masse and disrespect those who give them the coverage of their freedoms and liberties do not deserve the protections they receive.
It is here in the aspect of respect, honor, and understanding of our laws and culture which these people lack which forfeits their place here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
