Posted on 08/15/2002 11:23:35 AM PDT by gubamyster
You have internalized your own oppression when you begin to parrot the left.
Then, they were expected to become part of America, which included speaking our language, knowing our history and respecting our traditions.
Of course any one that thinks this is living in complete ignorance of American history.
Thank you Professor Foner. Will you next quote directly from Prof Zinn? (Eric Foner is a communist prof at Columbia who used to run the AHA and Zinn is a contributor to the Nation who wrote the most used textbook in America History. Both have made it their lifes work to revise American history to the specifications of the CPUSA.)
How is it that all the big cities in America developed these enclaves with names like: Little Italy, Chinatown, Little Havana, etc. The simple fact is the first generation of imigrants, since the original colonists that didn't mingle with the native population, have ALWAYS clustered together with their own kind.
1. The origional colonists were not immigrants, but colonists who were creating a new country. They did not want to join the Indian Nations. They wanted to take their land. Thank you for making a comparison that people on your side normally abhor: Third world immigrants are colonizing America.
2. It is undeniable that immigrants generally chose to live to gether in American cities or to go off to the same general areas of the frontier. However, most immigrants were part of distinct waves and we had a real fragmentation. Scots, Italians, Poles, Greeks, Swedes, etc were distinct groups. There was little cohesion between these groups and eventially all did become Americans. It took time and assimilation was sped up by the fact that immigration was always curtaled after a few years and because immigrants were expected to assimilate.
Never before in our history have we had so many immigrants who speak the same language. Moreover, we have never had immigrants from a neighboring country who believe that they are entitled to the land.
The closest we came were with the Irish and German immigrants from the 1840's to 1924. In both cases we had a large number of immigrants comming over generations. Both also came from countries that had real problems with Great Britain and these carried over to their relations to American culture, which was predominantly British.
This had serious reprocussions. It took a century to assimilate the Irish and Germans. Frankly, we also had loyalty issues during our wars. These occured right from the start with the San Patricos, who were Irish immigrants who defected to Mexico during the Mexican War. During the Civil War, we had the largest riots in American history with the Draft riots, which were essentially ethnic affairs. (Irish vs everyone else in NYC).
During World War 1 and 2 we had serious sabotage of teh war effort by Irish and German unions and even Americans who ended up volunteering to fight for the Germans.
I would also note that contrary to the line given by neocons and the left, there were real costs to America from the last great wave of immigration (1880-1924). We saw the importation of socialism to America. We saw the Northeast become bastions of the left, primarily due to a demographic change.
Frankly it was not until the 1970's that Irish and German America voted like other white Americans.
If the country is to survive, we need to assimilate all immigrants. To do this we must ensure assimilation by ending multi-culturalism, and see immigrant communities are not insular. We need to curtail future immigration so that we have manageable numbers.
Having 34 million immigrants (plus an indetermined number of illegals) and another million legal immigrants per year is simply unsustanable if we want to keep an American political culture even remotly resembling that of our founding.
Ron
PS. Before you start calling me a WASP nativist, please note that I am a first Generation America of Jewish decent. The facts speak for themselves. Go pick up Alien Nation by Peter Brimlow.
Oh, please do!
There's big difference between learning somebody's language to reach out to them, and on the other hand demanding they learn your language. How obnoxious.
You can't tell a true conservative in California, the southwest, even increasing amounts of the south, west and the DC-Boston Corridor that things are the same. They simply are not.
As far as illegals go, they should not be here. Who cares if they've been here for ten years, they have no business being in our country. All you've indicated is that we have an unresponsive, illegitimate government of which is "Selling us down the river".
One of these days, even you'll realize that third world immigration and free trade is bad for America. However, unfortunately, it may be too late by then.
"One of these days, even you'll realize that third world immigration and free trade is bad for America."
People have been saying that for 200 years, and America rolls on. They said that America was going to hell in a handbasket 150 years ago because of all the Irish were pouring in. Many of the anti-immigrants then were anti-Catholic. And I take it your definition of "native-born" Americans does NOT mean American Indians.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab12.html
| Year | Total population |
Native stock |
Foreign stock |
| NUMBER | |||
| 1970* | 203,210,158 | 169,634,926 | 33,575,232 |
| 1960* | 179,325,675 | 145,275,233 | 34,050,442 |
| 1930 | 122,775,046 | 82,488,768 | 40,286,278 |
| 1920 | 105,710,620 | 68,994,682 | 36,715,938 |
| 1910 | 91,972,266 | 59,491,427 | 32,480,839 |
| 1900 | 75,994,575 | 49,956,178 | 26,038,397 |
| 1890 1/ | 62,622,250 | 41,840,305 | 20,781,945 |
| PERCENT DISTRIBUTION |
|||
| 1970* | 100.0 | 83.5 | 16.5 |
| 1960* | 100.0 | 81.0 | 19.0 |
| 1930 | 100.0 | 67.2 | 32.8 |
| 1920 | 100.0 | 65.3 | 34.7 |
| 1910 | 100.0 | 64.7 | 35.3 |
| 1900 | 100.0 | 65.7 | 34.3 |
| 1890 1/ | 100.0 | 66.8 | 33.2 |
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/twps0029.html
"Since 1970, the foreign-born population of the United States has increased rapidly due to large-scale immigration, primarily from Latin America and Asia. The foreign-born population rose from 9.6 million in 1970 to 14.1 million in 1980 and to 19.8 million in 1990. The estimated foreign-born population in 1997 was 25.8 million. As a percentage of the total population, the foreign-born population increased from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 6.2 percent in 1980, to 7.9 percent in 1990, and to an estimated 9.7 percent in 1997.2"
+ "As a percentage of total population, the foreign-born population rose from 9.7 percent in 1850 and fluctuated in the 13 percent to 15 percent range from 1860 to 1920 before dropping to 11.6 percent in 1930. The highest percentages foreign born were 14.4 percent in 1870, 14.8 percent in 1890 and 14.7 percent in 1910."
My point is that with such huge numbers, along with social politics and the loss of the enforcement of assimilation, along with huge numbers outside of the dominant cultural stock, this country will most likely break-down in its cohesion. I think that it is highly likely this will be the result, and I don't think that seeing things this way is unrealistic.
Again, I'm trying to look at things realistically.
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.