Posted on 07/08/2010 1:51:01 PM PDT by sdcraigo
Must be that British father thingee.
Hit the nail on the head. Your president is the head of an alien occupying force. I hope enough voters have the sense to change this dynamic in November.
BINGO!
A good article but this guy has a thing for Britain doesn’t he?
I would also question his history. Great Britain didn’t occupy America as a foreign force. America was born OUT OF that force. Americans didn’t get colonised - THEY were the colonisers.
Prince Charles was once accosted in New Zealand by an angry white woman New Zealander, holding a sign that said “Colonist go home!” Dare I say the irony is deafening.
Geography matters. The colonists that populated America were a mix of ordinary migration with a strong component of those escaping religious persecution in England. The culture that evolved from that mix was necessarily different than the stalwart authoritarian aristocracy they left behind in England. Add to that the physical separation of an ocean, and it becomes inevitable they would grow apart and develop deep and irreconcilable differences.
“Geography matters. The colonists that populated America were a mix of ordinary migration with a strong component of those escaping religious persecution in England. The culture that evolved from that mix was necessarily different than the stalwart authoritarian aristocracy they left behind in England. Add to that the physical separation of an ocean, and it becomes inevitable they would grow apart and develop deep and irreconcilable differences.”
No-one denies that but to suggest that Britain was a foreign occupier of America is to be ignorant of history and American origins.
For me the question is, if this were an alien occupying force (say we were conquered by the mighty Tuvalu), would we really all be calmly sitting around talking about how we’re gonna fix things November while our country burned down around our ears? I don’t think so. You’d have to assume an occupying force would not let something as trivial as the will of the people expressed in an election get in their way, that they’d have that figured into the plan. And you’d have to assume they think the game is already over because we are, evidently, willing to let them keep wrecking the country for the next four months. I don’t know, but that’s not how I pictured us dealing with alien invaders.
Exactly. When Mexico threw 30 million invaders over the border we... never mind.
The British were, in a de facto sense, foreigners with respect to the American colonies. The question is not one of shared origins, but of divergent cultures. There are communities here in America where the dominant culture is not dominant, and “occupying forces” would feel as strange and as deeply offend the sense of freedom as any other “formally” foreign power. As a thought experiment, put a garrison of militant San Francisco politicians in direct, dictatorial control over an Amish community and see how well that works. So my question to you is this: How long do two cultures with a common origin have to be separate before they can be considered “foreign” in relation to each other?
Exactly, and the media doesn't even have the integrity to tell Americans what those immigrants are really costing us in benefits they take from this country, in wages they send back to their country, or in the children hooked on the drugs they help smuggle in. Yet, every time I hear some politician speak it's like he's living in a dream world, talking like these are all great people who just need a break and we shouldn't begrudge them that.
Illegals only occupy 25% of federal prison space, but other than that, they're just here doing the jobs Americans won't do and stuff.
I guess it would only be fair if the French started calling us FROGS.
At least the french tried to resist.
I think it’s a matter of pride. The South Americans do the same with the Spanish and Portuguese. They talk about the big bad colonists forgetting THEY are the colonists.
Imagine 10,000 Americans from NASA start a new moon colony and 100 years later declare independence from the USA. Would it be good history to teach their children that the USA was a foreign occupier of their Lunar colony or the fact they are the foreign occupiers themselves who decided on different rule?
But what’s the bright-line rule for becoming “foreign?” Any two people groups might have some common roots, even some shared political history, if you go back far enough. Are all Indo-Europeans not foreign to each other? If they are, when did they become so? What does it take to become “foreign?” It is a thousand years? Five hundred years? Never?
I am not clear on your premise for defining “foreign.” The establishment of a different rule of government, as based on an incompatibility of cultures, is exactly what makes nations foreign, by my understanding. If you don’t allow for cultural or at least jurisdictional difference as the true basis for “foreignness,” I am not sure what else is left.
bump
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.