Posted on 01/10/2025 7:57:26 AM PST by SJackson
Past antagonisms keep repeating themselves
The U.S. border crisis has an historical underlay that is generally disregarded in analyses of the “illegal migrant crisis.” Unconscious as well as longstanding conflicts impact so-called current events. Most of the “migrants” are from Mexico, Central and South America, although clearly with the Biden-manipulated influx we also see cohorts of Chinese, Middle Eastern, and African “migrants.” [The word migrants is in quotation marks because at one level they are migrants, but they also might be referred to as invaders, illegal border crossers, Trojan horse warriors sent to undermine the politics and economics of the U.S., or as pawns in a Democrat Party strategy to undermine Republican strength in the U.S.]
This writer saw about 20 “migrants” from Bangladesh and Pakistan being interviewed as they trekked into their new life. The interviewer asked them how they got here, and to a man (they were all men) they said they had walked. The interviewer was incredulous and asked, “From Pakistan?! How could you have walked from Pakistan?” But the migrant stuck to his guns and answered with a straight face, “Yes, we walked.” The role of NGOs was not mentioned, nor flights, nor pocket money, nor meals, etc.
Tensions over our Southern border with Mexico extend back to the 19th century. Mexico actually invited Americans to come settle in what was then Mexican territory in what is today northeastern Texas. Sam Houston and various frontiersmen accepted Mexico’s offer, but conflicts arose and Texas became independent of Mexico in 1836, which included the major defeat at San Jacinto of the Mexican forces, led by Santa Ana, by Gen. Sam Houston, who led the Texans. Texas became an independent Republic of Texas from 1836 to 1845.
By 1844 President James Polk came into office and was committed to a doctrine of Manifest Destiny which promoted the idea that U.S. territory should expand dramatically across the continent beyond the vast territory that had been added by Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase. This ideological position was based on a vision of democratic ideals and rights-based political philosophy that were uniquely American being put in place throughout the North American continent. Manifest Destiny was not a mere power-play ideology as leftists often portray it.
The phrase “Manifest Destiny,” which emerged as the best-known expression of this mindset, first appeared in an editorial published in the July-August 1845 issue of The Democratic Review. In the editorial, the writer criticized the opposition that still lingered against the annexation of Texas, urging national unity on behalf of “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” Here the key word is not “power” but “Providence.” This word is now rarely used, but the Founding Fathers and others following them were fond of this word because it communicated a sense of God-wrought expansion of the principles of sound governance based on biblical values that were the hallmark of our founding and success as a nation.
The crisis between Mexico and the U.S. came to a head in 1846 when U.S. troops crossed the Nueces River into the land area between it and the Rio Grande. The U.S. claimed the Rio Grande was the boundary between us and Mexico, while Mexico claimed the Nueces was. Thus, the crossing of the Nueces by U.S. troops was adjudged by Mexico to be an act of war and the Mexican-American War began. Mexico lost the war and about one-third of its territory was taken by the U.S., including nearly all of present-day California, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.
For this writer, the expansion of democratic political ideals claimed by Manifest Destiny actually pre-dates the 19th century and goes back to the adversarial relationship between Spain and England in the 16th century. That tension reached its climax during the reign of Elizabeth I, who was intensely evangelical (Protestant) in her spirituality. Plots were formed against her and after she supported the Protestants in the Netherlands in their revolt against Spain, the opposition of Spain intensified.
Spain directed its fleet (armada) to attack England in 1588. As History.com notes,
Just after midnight on August 8, the English sent eight burning ships into the crowded harbor at Calais. The panicked Spanish ships were forced to cut their anchors and sail out to sea to avoid catching fire. The disorganized fleet, completely out of formation, was attacked by the English off Gravelines at dawn. In a decisive battle, the superior English guns won the day, and the devastated Armada was forced to retreat north to Scotland. The English navy pursued the Spanish as far as Scotland and then turned back for want of supplies. Battered by storms and suffering from a dire lack of supplies, the Armada sailed on a hard journey back to Spain around Scotland and Ireland.
That defeat of the Spanish marked the ascendancy of England as a great power.
Lastly, we should recall the Spanish-American War. Spain resisted the Cuban desire for independence, and this resistance threatened U.S. investments in Cuba at the end of the 19th century. In April 1898, Spain declared war on the U.S., but by December they had lost the war. Under the Treaty of Paris signed in December 1898, Spain renounced all claims to Cuba, ceded Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States and transferred sovereignty over the Philippines to the United States for $20 million.
If we look at our southern border conflict within this wider historical context of a longstanding conflict with Catholic, Spanish-speaking people and English-speaking Protestants, we see a deeper dimension of our so-called “immigration crisis.” Certainly, the Democrats are looking for more voters who are dependent upon government and will cling to their left-wing programs and superficial philosophy. However, their interest has a deep historical context.
Our differences with the Spanish-speaking world are longstanding and real.
Like Tonto said, "What do you mean by 'our,' Paleface?"
A culture is united by it’s language, that is where we went wrong.
England invented racism. Ask Andrew Young.
The author uses his entire article discussing history from the 1800's. Then makes this comment? His article has no relevance or bearing on the 21st century differences.
So yes, I believe it.
Just because we want to control immigration and ensure that we have immigrants that want to assimilate into our culture people scream Isolationist or racism. Both BS arguments.
We made a mistake years ago accepting all this flying other flag crap and celebrating foreign celebrations like Cinco de Mayo etc... You come here, become an American. Be proud of your heritage, but you come here for a better life and contribute to our country, so act like it.
It is sad that Spain ruined so much of this New World and so much of modern America.
This is rubbish.
In countries where there are many American ex-pats do they celebrate 4th of July etc... not that I have seen. Maybe private celebrations but no government acknowledgement, parades, tv commercials etc...
As a side note, stop print government forms in 99 languages. English only! Everywhere I go I see Spanish billboards, sickening.
I’ve always found it amusing that “Hispanics” are seen having a big disconnect with Western ‘English’ culture, but their language derives from their conquerors - the Spanish.
‘
Uh.... no. She was Anglican, basically Catholic without a Pope, mostly because her daddy was told by the Pope that he had to continue in what was by church law a three times unlawful relationship because Pope was in bed with the Spanish.
But she was not evangelical. She was in favor of Catholics and Anglicans living together in peace as long as both bowed to her as Queen. However the RCC of the time still was in bed with Spain, who still wanted England and was determined to force her off the throne. This, naturally, caused some problems.
The writer forgot the part that Mexico ended human slavery 50 years before the US. Texas was part of the Mexican territories. Texas didn’t want to end human slavery. Hence, war.
This Texan as a outsider observing the natives, got to see this beer holiday enter Massachusetts in 1999 where as in 1998 it was unknown.
“.... mostly because her daddy was told by the Pope that he had to continue in what was by church law a three times unlawful relationship because Pope was in bed with the Spanish.”
The big problem for the Pope was two-fold. Henry’s marriage to Katherine was specifically allowed by the Pope upon Henry’s request and the fact that Katherine was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, the richest and most powerful monarchs in Christendom. They had opened up two continents to spread the Catholic faith. How does the Pope say to Henry, yes, you can dump Katherine for Anne?
And Henry was given the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ (which all later monarchs proudly proclaim) for his rants against Luther and Protestantism.
Yep. Henry was a good Catholic boy. It took a great deal to force him out of the Roman Catholic Church.
No, the problem for the Pope was he approved the marriage for Henry's Daddy. In fact the first time Henry the Eighth was forced into the marriage he was 11. Henry renounced it when he was 14.
The marriage was Incest by marriage as she was his brother's widow, Incest by blood as even the marriage to his brother had to get special permission as they were too closely related and not entered into of his own free will.
In one way you are right he probably would have over looked that if she had popped out a couple, three healthy boys. But from his point of view the lack of it was a sure sign that he had done wrong in allowing his father to force him into it and that the Pope had done wrong in allowing it. Her infertility was God's Punishment. There could not be a problem with him as he was pumping out healthy bastard sons on a regular basis.
If the Pope had granted the annulment (and do not even try to tell me this would have been unprecedented Eleanor of Aquitaine ring a bell?) it is very possible that Henry would have married a proper Catholic princess and kept Anne as his mistress.
This would have been the best result for the everyone except the Spanish who would have lost the chance to pop one of their inbred Princes on the throne of England.
But there were two things standing in the way of that. The Spanish really wanted the wealth of England and the Pope wanted to "purify" England of it's tendency to go it's own way.
They gambled. They lost.
Yes, it is.
Cherry picked history, and not a very good one at that.
Focuses on the Armada, Mexican War, and Spanish-American War, ignores the Napoleonic Wars/Peninsular War or the fact that the US has had a complicated relationship with it’s Latin American neighbors.
Also completely ignores almost 900 years for Franco-English/British rivalry beside which any Spanish rivalry pales to insignificance.
“Spain directed its fleet (armada) to attack England in 1588. As History.com notes...
...
That defeat of the Spanish marked the ascendancy of England as a great power.”
Being in an English-dominated culture, we’re constantly hearing about the great and glorious 1588 defeat of the Spanish Armada by the plucky English. But we hear essentially nothing about the 1589 defeat of the English Armada by the plucky Spanish. That’s right. Queen Bess sent a retaliatory armada the following year to take down/invade Spain. Her armada gambit was just as big of a flop as Spain’s the year before.
England invented racism. Ask Andrew Young.
Ask the Irish.
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.