Tagged: languages & natives
January 19, 2016 at 6:17 pm #46732
Corvus, I didn’t know that about Indian citizenship and the religious freedom law. Thanks. Muslims are only maybe 1% of the population so we are far from them becoming a majority anywhere other than a couple towns in Michigan. It just seems like they are a larger presence given who/what occupies the Oval Office and the CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood gang he has surrounded himself with. On that note blacks are only 13% of the population but you would think they are the majority if you look at the mix of top officials in DC and in our major cities.
The conversation on this thread has been all over the place and I hesitated to jump in for want of knowing how to express myself but I’ll try. Note that when I say native I mean US born, not native as in Indians. Yes GS we all can learn from different cultures if we are willing to extend mutual respect but it cannot be a one way street. At a national level it is inherent upon the newcomers whoever they might be to show respect for the native culture already in place and to try to assimilate. That’s where mutual respect must start. Muslims have refused to do that wherever they go, demanding instead that their new countries change to do things their way. The US has tens of millions of non-native born people from everywhere in the world. For the most part Europeans, Asians and people from India have assimilated rather well and they have been welcomed. Mexicans and folks from Central America will get there eventually but their assimilation has been comparatively slow. I think this is in part due to those coming from those places representing a very different socio-economic mix. Many native Americans resent the costs that entails and that serves to foster an us-them mindset. Another piece of it though that some find scary is the whole La Raza thing that basically thinks the Southwest is theirs to reclaim and essentially rejects assimilation. That really shouts us-them and as the newcomers it is inherent on them to dissipate those fears. The native Americans should not have to defend that this is an English speaking country or that our deep history is that of European colonization of Native American lands, horrible as that process was. Yes, the Mexicans were in the Southwest before the “English” and that cultural heritage is very much a part of the local culture as it should be, but the fact is the Mexicans took that land from the true Native Americans before they in turn lost it to the English. Their claim is no stronger than say is the Netherlands to the greater NYC area, Spain’s to Florida, or Sweden’s to Delaware. They had it and then they lost it to the “English”. We in the US almost always welcome “them” when they come looking to join us rather than force us into being something different.January 20, 2016 at 12:24 am #46733
Yes GS we all can learn from different cultures if we are willing to extend mutual respect but it cannot be a one way street.
Could not agree more. Europe bent over backward to show one-way respect, and the invaders came in ready to demand/take/destroy whatever they wanted (yes, that’s broad-brush, and not 100% true, but substantially enough so as to destroy any chance at peaceful coexistence). There are good people on both sides of every immigrant situation, but there are trouble-makers on both sides as well, and far too many to allow it to work successfully under current circumstances, regardless of where they go.January 20, 2016 at 2:30 am #46736
MountainBiker, you’re welcome sir, ever hear of a treaty that was ratified on the 4th of July of 1848 the treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo signed in Feb. of 1848 and approved in July 4, 1848?. The treaty states that Mexicans were to be allowed to retain their culture (language is an essential expression of one’s culture, this covers Native Indigenous peoples as well as Mexicans (who are mostly indigenous from DNA) in exchange for their lands. In ONE day of legal endorsement 10,000 Mexican nationals were made part of the USA in the states of Texas, etc. keep in mind New Mexico and Arizona were maintained as “territories” for nearly 50 years after the USA obtained the land from the Republic of Mexico. Part of the reason that was is rooted in the need for more English speakers in each area where Spanish still was the majority language up until statehood. Here’s what I know, MONEY doesn’t care what language you speak as long as you can help it grow, the languages of the indigenous Americans are not money-making languages, so they suffer. Spanish is a serious hemispheric language and will remain so, as long as there’s people in the Western Hemisphere. I hope we all learn a few languages that will lead to a greater understanding of country.January 20, 2016 at 7:23 pm #46737
Spanish is the language of the 3rd world ………….sorry , but it should be rejected . Every nation where Spanish is the national language is a crap country , where nothing works . That sounds hateful but truth is truth . Every place the English went , they by in large bettered the place , everywhere the Spanish went , they just looted and enslaved . The French ? still up for debate . Too much tolerance is a killer of a nation , countries exist for a reason . Another reason I admire Putin’s nationalism , speak Russian and obey our laws, or find another place to live . We used to be that way , look at us now . We are more divided than any time in our nations history .My girl is Russian and I have no good explanation for her when she asks Why do they let that happen ? Thats the way humanity is , the conquerer makes the rules and sets the culture , its not a positive thing , but thats the way it has been sense man set foot out of the cave . Its up to the people of any nation to resist another way that threatens their way of life . That is not going to change , we would like to think we are above natures laws ………..but in the end , we are still animals , and subject to it . Thats why one world government and one world order will never come to pass , they may get close , but it will fail . Why ? because we are animals , and human nature will make the best laid plans turn to s$it .
” No plan survives first contact with the enemy ”
Erwin RommelJanuary 21, 2016 at 2:06 pm #46738
Corvus, I will admit to never having read the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo, though what you say does not surprise me. I appreciate you sharing some of what you know and your perspective.
I am fine with folks speaking Spanish or any other native language at home or with their compatriots. My mother’s parents spoke French at home when she was young. I also think retaining certain cultural celebrations and traditions adds flavor to the larger society. What I wouldn’t give for my grandmother’s tourtiere during the Christmas holidays. What I am not fine with is any group that comes to the US without the intent to otherwise assimilate into an English speaking America whose cultural heritage is primarily European. In practical terms I would hope that the folks from Mexico/Central America/South America would recognize that what evolved out of the British colonies in what is now the US and Canada worked out far better than the model Spain and Portugal set in motion with their colonies to the South. I don’t want the Southwest US to become North Mexico because Mexico is a failed State plain and simple. All that said however, my guess is that the La Raza folks will lose out and that the Hispanic community will eventually assimilate with a new “normal” arising.
Coming back to the original group this thread was talking about, the Muslims are the real problem the US faces, not the folks from Mexico and points South. They are still few in numbers but their influence is growing far larger, and they are utterly incompatible with our culture. Any group that will not recognize the Constitution as the highest law of the land should not be here. There is no place for Sharia law in Western society.January 21, 2016 at 2:13 pm #46739
Trump is the only one that mentions the fact that we dont know WHO is crossing our joke of a Southern boarder . Muslims and Mexicans look very similar , a few forged papers ………and they are in .January 22, 2016 at 4:16 am #46751
Tolik, fortunately you don’t live near Spanish-speakers but, too bad you see Spanish-speakers as “Third Worlders” and their nations are turned to sh*t, but I am certain as an American who has really studied history that speaking English does NOT insure peace and prosperity — once upon a time there were all these blue and grey suited men slaughtering each other in waves creative violence, men who all spoke English when the nation was hardly 100 years old and values were strong. I will admit this to you, same thing has happened among Spanish-speakers, (and many other monolingual countries) because it’s NOT language that causes these bloody divisions, rather it’s organized corruption and those who resist it.
Tolik, I’ll I was pointing out is that we American Indians have language rights/ protected under treaty, (highest law of the Nation) and this does NOT apply to the Greek, Italian, German, Irish, French, Korean, Farsi, Urdu-speaking, immigrants– but it does cover the former Mexican citizens and their descendants who did NOT immigrate but remained in the lands under the new U.S. Government it is just a question– Did the English (Brits) make India a better place merely because these spice-loving English were speaking and exercising English values over a non-Christian multi-lingual nation. No, now India speaks all sorts of English and they are still suffering. In a post-SHTF world knowing Spanish may come in pretty handy. Most of the Western Hemisphere speaks it.January 22, 2016 at 4:27 am #46752
The Muslims were in control of most of Spain for nearly 800 years starting from 711 to 1492, better bet there were doing some DNA mixing. But, I have met some blue-eyed blond Muslims. ( It’s not a race it’s a political religion) they were from the former Yugoslavia.January 22, 2016 at 4:31 am #46753
MountainBiker, I really agree with your assessment. Thanks.January 22, 2016 at 6:38 am #46754
Warning: Rambling Discourse Ahead
What I am not fine with is any group that comes to the US without the intent to otherwise assimilate into an English speaking America whose cultural heritage is primarily European. In practical terms I would hope that the folks from Mexico/Central America/South America would recognize that what evolved out of the British colonies in what is now the US and Canada worked out far better than the model Spain and Portugal set in motion with their colonies to the South.
However you regard the man who said it, Michael Savage’s dictum (mantra?) of “Borders, Language, Culture” truly is what it takes to define a nation. Without borders, i.e., a defined territory of their own, a group of people may regard themselves as a “nation,” united in some cause or ideal (Jews, pre-Israel, or currently, “Palestinians”) but without their own land, they are subject to the whims and vagaries of other nations so possessed. Without a common language to unite them, and in which to precisely express and codify their laws, they will argue fruitlessly over misinterpretations. Without a common culture, they will come to conflict over what is right, and what is wrong, never mind that others, elsewhere do things differently.
That does not mean that they must seek to conquer the lands of others, only that they must defend theirs. It does not mean that other languages must be unwelcome. Each language on the planet has developed over the ages, in response to different environments and cultures, and as such, each is yet another valuable way of perceiving and communicating aspects of reality. But without a single common language between them, they remain as disunited as a rope-connected troupe of mountain climbers whose ropes have been cut into short leads, and some won’t be able to arrive at their safe and intended destination
There are cultures predominantly based on production and trade, as the way to increase the well-being of the individual and the group, and there are cultures predominantly based on plunder as the way. This is usually reflected in the language that the culture uses, and in the kind of governance that culture seeks. Bring in too much too soon of another culture, and the established ways will be diluted and eventually overcome. This is useful knowledge for a nation which guards its liberty, as well as for people who wish to stealthily conquer such a nation. Liberty begets prosperity, but unfortunately for us, prosperity begets laxity.
The feudal system of Spain, heavily influenced as it was by centuries of Muslim occupation, came forcefully upon the Western hemisphere, and persisted here longer than in Spain itself — one might think that it has lasted in some places to the present day. The feudal system of England was in transition to a rough commercialism by the time it reached our shores, and though there was plenty of mistreatment of the indigenous people, and of those brought here as slaves, the view eventually developed here (and in England) that slavery and exploitation were contrary to the Rights of Man, and the kind of nation we wanted to become. We are still sorting out the wrongs of those times, and their effects upon us.
I can only hope and expect that eventually these things will simply become history instead of the sore spots of social conflict they currently are. I like to think that my Anglo-Saxon ancestors eventually made peace with my Norman ancestors, however grinding the serfdom must have been, and they in turn eventually must have made peace with my German forbears, else I wouldn’t be here.
Did the English (Brits) make India a better place merely because these spice-loving English were speaking and exercising English values over a non-Christian multi-lingual nation. No, now India speaks all sorts of English and they are still suffering.
I haven’t been to India, but from what I read, they are in the process of becoming a more prosperous nation, and overcoming the caste system as they industrialize. They have come up with a wide variety of technological adaptations to provide electric power, clean cooking heat, communications, and motor vehicles, at cost and scale that helps without overpowering. I suspect that whatever the deficits in the way the English treated them, the cultural concept the Brits left behind, of a government that owes service and reasonable laws to its people (however badly it may fail in the execution), may have had something to do with the current trends toward prosperity.
Whatever the failings of this nation and its government (and they were many and serious) in the late nineteenth century, the entire map of Europe was virtually redrawn, ancient kingdoms overturned … by unlettered peasants … scrambling … just to get here … such was the promise of a nation where one could own oneself! We’ve certainly managed to overcome our unwanted liberty, more’s the pity! If we retied those short lengths of climbing rope into a coherent lead, could we scale the mountain again? I think we need to braid a new one.
Related to original thread: Remedy for aggressive Refujihadi:
January 22, 2016 at 6:56 am #46756
- This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by L Tecolote.
Any group that will not recognize the Constitution as the highest law of the land should not be here.
A person few would expect to expound eloquently, and extensively on the subject was Russell Means. Some here know who he was, some even in the U.S. may not. The following is long, and it is brought to us initially by someone I have significant discomfort with (Alex Jones). But he only provides a quick introduction, and I just disregard the intro, wait for Russell Means to come on, then I sit back and thoroughly enjoy him explaining to us how precious the Constitution really is, and how we white men (and women) have allowed it to be squandered and become irrelevant. Whether you know who Russell Means was or not, you may be quite surprised (and equally pleased) to learn what he has to say about the Constitution – not because of the messenger, but because of the message itself. Is this worth the extended time to watch? Personally, for me its importance far exceeds that of many full length fictional movies I’ve seen. Don’t want to watch the full 1½ hours? No problem – but for interest, at least start it and go to the 15:25 point. If you can stop there, more power to you. And if you can at least go only two minutes longer, watch the segment from 36:15 – 38:15. I’ll suggest that you might just find (particularly the Americans here) that your interest and curiosity won’t let you turn it off quite yet at that point. If you watched that first 15 minutes (minus Alex Jones), then the 2-minute segment, and want more, go back and start at 15:25 again and keep going – even if in segments (there are multiple segments that become very obvious as you go through it).
While you may not agree with every little jot and tittle, that’s not important. Watch for the concepts. What you will find is that it’s not about Indians, the poverty of the Pine Ridge Reservation, or Russell Means. What it IS about is what patriotic white folks consider to be of great significance – you’ll just never have heard it quite the same way before (and therefore you may be treated to insights about what you already believe, that you never considered before).
Personally, I find this to be a most remarkable and intelligent presentation on the Constitution and what it’s really all about – it just happens to come from a source few would ever expect.January 22, 2016 at 7:29 am #46759
DARN, L Tecolote! ROFL! I was composing my post while you were posting yours, and just saw it. Here it is after 2:00 in the morning, and I should have been in bed hours ago. So I was trying to wind down so I could peacefully go to sleep. No, I had to find your post, and watch the video. I might be awake a bit longer, but thanks anyway – it was worth it.January 22, 2016 at 2:47 pm #46760
I only had time to watch up to the part of the video you indicated GS but heard enough to like that guy. Very insightful. Very smart. I’ll pick up his book one of these days.January 22, 2016 at 3:32 pm #46761
Very powerful. Are we looking into the lens of our future?January 23, 2016 at 12:43 am #46770
Mrs. Tec and I had the honor and pleasure, several years ago, to listen to a talk by Russell Means and meet him afterwards. He said then much of what he says in this video, and was inviting members of the audience to join the Republic of Lakotah, which he explained in some detail. His point about the USA becoming a single giant reservation, wherein the Constitution no longer applies is well taken.
It’s all a mess of subtle lawyer tricks. According to the research Mrs. Tec has done, the fundamental trick is to get us to swear that we are “citzens of the United States,” or “US citizens.” The term, “The United States” is an ambiguous phrase which has at least three separate, but related, meanings:
- United States. This term has several meanings.  It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations,  it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or  it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of “United States”
Those might seem distinct enough to avoid confusion, but the Constitution also states:
- “Congress shall have the power: …
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States**, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, U.S. Constitution.
In other words, within their territory, the Constitution does not necessarily apply, unless Congress wants it to.
But Washington, D.C. is defined as “The United States,” and to further entangle the matter, in 1871, Congress incorporated a “municipal corporation,” ostensibly for the governance of the capitol city, entitled, (did you guess it?) “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
According to “modern” jurisprudence, when you sign some form, e.g., voter registration, application for government program, driver’s license application, swearing under “Penalty of Perjury,” that you are “a citizen of the United States,” you have, in effect (and probably unknowingly) placed yourself under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, and are entitled only to the “privileges and immunities” that Congress sees fit to allow you, as alluded to in the so-called Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. That is why in so many ¢a$e$, the ¢ourt$ have happily sanctioned the application of unconstitutional law to us self-defined (self-naturalized) federal serfs.
Read more at: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter4.htm
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.