"However they got here, they're here now"
Ramon F Herrera
-Ramon F Herrera
Ramon F Herrera
07/02/2006
>From all the angry rhetoric about illegal immigration, I gather a lot
of Americans are afraid of losing our country to the invading hordes.
Not me. I have unshakeable confidence in the power of American culture
to corrupt almost anyone.
This cycle of assimilation has been going on for decades: A group of
immigrants moves here from another country. Italy. Bosnia. The
Dominican Republic. Minnesota. At first, they form a fairly closed
society, living together, speaking their own language, maintaining
their cultural identity, refusing to root for the United States in the
World Cup. (OK, not even 10th-generation Americans root for the United
States in the World Cup.)
For these newcomers, life in America can be difficult, as they are
shunned and discriminated against by people who have been here only two
or three generations longer. Unable to communicate well in English,
they find only menial, low-paying jobs. But they persist because, in
most ways, life is still better here than in the country they left.
And then, within this close-knit, insular community, something starts
to happen to the second generation. They begin to learn English,
speaking it openly with their friends at school. They become engrossed
in American cartoons and sitcoms. As teenagers they discover malls,
where they buy T-shirts with cool American sayings printed on them,
such as "Vote for Pedro" and "Tell your boyfriend I said
hello."
In short, they become Americans, with all the freedoms and frustrations
and social pathologies the rest of us enjoy. They get an education,
make lives for themselves, raise families, become our neighbors, until
the Rodriquezes and Habibs and Tortellinis down the street have no more
connection to their Guatemalan or Middle Eastern or Sicilian ancestors
than I have to my Welsh ones. Less, perhaps, because I still
occasionally eat Welsh rare-bit.
And all that occurs because that first generation, like the Puritans
(speaking of first-generation Americans), was willing to undergo severe
hardship: the scorn, the deprivation, the unfamiliar customs, the
quasi-pornographic ads in the Abercrombie and Fitch store.
I understand that today's immigration issues are different in some
respects, as millions enter this country illegally each year. After
9/11, it's not safe to assume that none of them means us harm.
Clearly, there's a need for better security at our borders; we can
only hope our government takes time out soon from investigating steroid
use in major league baseball to address the problem.
But in the meantime, let's also not overreact to the immigrants in
our midst. However they got here, they're here now, and - let's
face it - they're probably not going away. It's not like
they're really going to take over the country or subvert our culture.
If history is any indication, it's much more likely our culture will
eventually subvert them.
E-mail Rob Jenkins at rjenk...@yahoo.com.
dxAce
Ramon F Herrera wrote:
Time for a reality check...
Time for an ammo check...
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Ramon F Herrera
Ohmygosh, the gringo is going to shoot us.
I am shaking here...
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Americans), was willing to undergo severe hardship: the scorn, the
and those rooms crowded with Mexicans, so similar to the Mayflower...
-Ramon
dxAce
Wiping properly beats trying to shake it off.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Ramon F Herrera
> Content-Type: text/html
> X-Google-AttachSize: 756
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
>
> <p>Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>dxAce wrote:
> <br>> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> <br>>
> <br>> > Time for a reality check...
> <br>> >
> <br>> > <a href="http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=39&url_article_id=16795&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2">http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=39&url_article_id=16795&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2</a>
> <br>>
> <br>> Time for an ammo check...
> <br>>
> <br>> dxAce
> <br>> Michigan
> <br>> USA
> <p>Ohmygosh, the gringo is going to shoot us.
> <p>I am shaking here...</blockquote>
> Wiping properly beats trying to shake it off.
> <br>Michigan
> <br>USA
> <br> </html>
>
> --------------8A6B9E33ED527945CF2A293C--
I have noticed that several white anglos have an obsessive fixation
with coprophagic and defecatory matters. That is certainly your
prerrogative. Meanwhile we newcomers prefer to stay away from such
fecal thoughts and concentrate is a cleaner and more positive,
optimistic future.
-RFH
Kitty
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:1151858614.4...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
and well you should be..............Americans are getting sick & tired of
the rejects from Mexico, and all the other squatter countries south of
mexico.......do you think Americans will put up with the shit for long? DO
NOT piss off the American people.........trust me, we RETALIATE
Kitty
Kitty
It helps us relate to mexicans......where I am, they seem obsessed with
dirty baby diapers.....I see them everywhere, thrown from their junk cars
and esp. in a parking lot of the local Wal-Mart.........gross....but
typical. so mexicans have a lot of work & counseling to go thru to get rid
of that nasty obsession............definitely endearing to another mexican,
not civilized society
Kitty
GeekBoy
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
dxAce
Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> > <br>> > <a href="http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=39&url_article_id=16795&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2">http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=39&url_article_id=16795&url_subchannel> <br>>
> > <br>> Time for an ammo check...
> > <br>>
> > <br>> dxAce
> > <br>> Michigan
> > <br>> USA
> > <p>Ohmygosh, the gringo is going to shoot us.
> > <p>I am shaking here...</blockquote>
> > Wiping properly beats trying to shake it off.
> > <p>dxAce
> > <br>Michigan
> > <br>USA
> > <br> </html>
> >
> > --------------8A6B9E33ED527945CF2A293C--
>
> I have noticed that several white anglos have an obsessive fixation
> with coprophagic and defecatory matters. That is certainly your
> prerrogative. Meanwhile we newcomers prefer to stay away from such
> fecal thoughts and concentrate is a cleaner and more positive,
> optimistic future.
>
> -RFH
RFH? Really Fucked up Hispanic?
Ramon F Herrera
> .....but not for long.
>
Five hundred years, and counting.
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Kitty: you are so full of... keyboard bravado.
-Ramon
Kaholicious
Immigrants in the latter part of the century had to assimilate, because
there wasn't satellite TV, internet, cheap long distance, etc.
Now immigrants can sit comfortably in front of a computer, get all their
home country news in their language, talk with relatives and friends easily
in their native tongue, order up satellite TV with channels for them
specifically in their language, etc. In other words, with technology of the
late 1980's-90's, there is less pressure to assimilate and learn the
language. Sure, previous generations of immigrants have eventually
integrated into the host culture, but this was before all these technologies
came about.
Probably most importantly, generations of previous immigrants were not
moving here in the "cheap airfare" age. When they moved, they moved here
permanently. What I see happening now, is opportunistic immigrants will come
here, with nothing more than the idea of making some cash, then move yet
again when they feel the need there are greener pastures elsewhere. Airfares
are cheap. This isn't 1890, when the only way here was a steamer ship that
took a week to get here and several months wages.
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:1151857962.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gringogirl
Kaholicious wrote:
> I >-Ramon
Not similar at all but of course you believe in revisionist history.
Ramon, the ignorant and uneducated and the biggest LIAR in here.
agreed G-q
Head Bustin' Hank
Rooms? What rooms? That remark makes no sense.
The Pilgrims, who arrived on the Mayflower, did not come to America to
learn the customs of benighted savages, they expected the savages to
learn English customs, which they did, or they died.
The Mexicans are going to have to learn to do things the American way,
starting with going back to Mexico and applying for an immigration visa.
Head Bustin' Hank
Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> History shows effects of U.S. on immigrants
> 07/02/2006
> And all that occurs because that first generation, like the Puritans
> (speaking of first-generation Americans), was willing to undergo severe
> hardship: the scorn, the deprivation, the unfamiliar customs, the
> quasi-pornographic ads in the Abercrombie and Fitch store.
Weird. How many Pequots or Wampanogs or Narragansetts or Naumkeags
are left to point out which of their customs the Puritans adopted?
gringogirl
ramon - why dont you and you're dog go spend "quality latin time "
together. ?:)
kcajyer
> So, Mexicans have been in the new England area for 500 years and more?
> You are so full of shit.
Southwest "USofA", the "Onate" families came from the Vera Cruz
("Mexico") area
, 1500s, they are known to be the first authentic Pilgram families of
the "USofA",
their names are Abendano, Archuleta, Baca, Barrios, Cadimo, Carvajal,
Chavez, Cruz,
Duran, Escarramad, Garcia, Garcia Holgado, Gonzalez Bernal, Gonzalez
Lobon, Griego, Gutierrez, Hernandez, Herrera, Hinojos, Holguin,
Hurtado,
Jimenez, Jorge, Lopez, Lopez Holguin, Lopez Mederos, Lopez de Ocanto,
Lucero, Lucero de Godoy, Luna, Madrid, Marquez, Martin Serrano, Monroy,
Montoya, Moran, Naranjo, Pedraza, Perez de Bustillo, Ramirez, del Rio,
Robledo, Rodriguez, Rodriguez de Salazar, Romer, Ruiz Caceres, Tapia,
Torres, Valenia, Varela Jaramillo, Varela de Losada, Vasquez, Velasquez
Spanish speakers founded cities across our country, from Florida, and
the Carolinas and Virginia area, across to the southwestern area of the
present USA. They
also explored the west and east coast line.
gringogirl
Graphic Queen wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2006 12:18:18 -0700, "gringogirl" <sumar...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >ramon - why dont you and you're dog go spend "quality latin time "
> >together. ?:)
>
> have saw from that article and what I have seen on the news reports
> most of them have no business being alive. The animals are better than
> any of those Latinos that can't seem to live within normal civilized
> boundaries.
> --
>
> Constitution of Mexico:
>
> FOREIGNERS may NOT, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the COUNTRY!
okay rescind that idea. perhaps we could volunteer ramon for medical
experiments for the good of society? :(
Don Gabacho
> Graphic Queen wrote:
> > So, Mexicans have been in the new England area for 500 years and more?
> > You are so full of shit.
>
> Southwest "USofA", the "Onate" families came from the Vera Cruz
> ("Mexico") area
> , 1500s, they are known to be the first authentic Pilgram families of
> the "USofA",
> their names are Abendano, Archuleta, Baca, Barrios, Cadimo, Carvajal,
> Chavez, Cruz,
> Duran, Escarramad, Garcia, Garcia Holgado, Gonzalez Bernal, Gonzalez
> Lobon, Griego, Gutierrez, Hernandez, Herrera, Hinojos, Holguin,
> Hurtado,
> Jimenez, Jorge, Lopez, Lopez Holguin, Lopez Mederos, Lopez de Ocanto,
> Lucero, Lucero de Godoy, Luna, Madrid, Marquez, Martin Serrano, Monroy,
> Montoya, Moran, Naranjo, Pedraza, Perez de Bustillo, Ramirez, del Rio,
> Robledo, Rodriguez, Rodriguez de Salazar, Romer, Ruiz Caceres, Tapia,
> Torres, Valenia, Varela Jaramillo, Varela de Losada, Vasquez, Velasquez
Spaniards or subjects of Spain, none of whom were involved in, much
less even conceived of, the founding of "our country" the U.S.A.
The U.S.A. was born as a direct result of the people and institutions
which evolved in the thirteen original colonies. It was born of a
Revolution waged by these first 'Americans.
Your very corruption of U.S. history is, in itself, an attack on the
very U.S.A. in which you include yourself as "our."
Head Bustin' Hank
kcajyer wrote:
> Southwest "USofA", the "Onate" families came from the Vera Cruz
> ("Mexico") area 1500s, they are known to be the first authentic Pilgram families of
> the "USofA"
No, you stupid Mexican asshole, that's a LIE.
When "Pilgrim" is capitalized, it refers to MY ancestors who arrived in
Massachusetts on the Mayflower in 1620. My direct ancestor was Richard
Warren and I'm related to quite a few of the survivors of that first
terrible winter when half of the brave colonists died.
It is not rare to be descended from a Pilgrim. About 40 million Real
Americans can trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower.
When "pilgrim" is NOT capitalized, it refers to somebody who travels to
a religious shrine or site, perhaps by walking, but not necessarily so.
A pilgrim can be of any religion, Christian, Catholic, Muslim,
Buddhist, whatever.
When the Onate party invaded the Rio Grande river valley, they were NOT
travelling to a religious site, they were there to conquer the region
and enslave the Pueblo Indian tribes so they could exploit them.
The Pueblo tribes suffered the abuse for years and finally rose up and
killed as many Spaniards as possible, driving them out of the region.
But the greedy Spanish bastards came back with even more force about
ten years later and enslaved the Indians again.
ZeMascouflatte
"Head Bustin' Hank" <flying...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is not rare to be descended from a Pilgrim. About 40 million Real
> Americans can trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower.
The only "Real Americans" are the Native Americans.
The one this asshole's 'ancestors' exterminated.
Just change 'spaniards' or 'spanish' in the rest of his delirium for
"anglo-saxons" or "anglos" and you'll get a more realistic picture.
funny nowadays how most anglos descend straight from the mayflower
passengers. forget the irish escaping famines, italians eating shit at
home, greedy english slave owners, other european leeches, without
forgetting the deported, the prostitutes and other thieves forced to the
colonies.
and in their pure tradition of hypocrite bastards, now they want to
close the door to immigration.
1- you take by force a land that belong to someone else (in this case
the native americans, whose blood, by the way, still flood in the veins
of many mexicans, which makes it more their land than yours)
2- kill, enslave, round up in reserves as many as you can
3- bring in more white motherfuckers
4- when immigration shift from 'caucasian' to asian sub-continent
(pakistan, india, etc...), start to change the rules
5- still let some mexicans in to do the dirty or physically demanding
jobs (unfit for these true descendants of the mayflowers pilgrims, with
a fucking big capital p)
6- when the shit hit the fan, reverse to your natural tendencies: kkk
nostalgia, talk like the nazis did in germany 36 (talk like if you were
real men, keep people in fear with lies and fabrications), build fences
and watchtowers on the border, etc... etc...
mayflower. pilgrims. wake up! this is the 21st century. nobody gives a
shit about where you pretend to come from. they just want a job. they
want a decent life.
but hey, if you could understand that, you would not be spewing your
trash and lies across the net by cross-posting as much as you do. which
by the way is a sure indicator that you're a moron.
flying booger is your nickname? well, it suits you so well, if i believe
my "american heritage dictionary" (appropriate name in your case):
booger - Slang
A worthless, despicable person.
Xeno Chauvin
"Kaholicious" <str...@hoctch.com> wrote in message
news:2XTpg.116520$IK3.76563@pd7tw1no...
>I dissagree.
>
> Immigrants in the latter part of the century had to assimilate, because
> there wasn't satellite TV, internet, cheap long distance, etc.
It also means that the second,third, and fourth generations do NOT have
to assimilate either. While the succeeding generations "may" be seduced by
the American culture they can still remain their family's original culture.
Case in point. For about a year I've frequented a convenience store wherein
a young man (26 years old) works. He is an East Indian, and has been here
since he was 16. He is attending college, and recently got married.
I inquired IF the young lady he married was the young lady I had
seen in the store a few weeks earlier. ( An exotic poured into a pair
of blue jeans.) No he replied that was his cousin, his wife just came in
from India.
This is why TRUE assimilation is no longer possible.
Xeno
kcajyer
Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
> kcajyer wrote:
>
> > Southwest "USofA", the "Onate" families came from the Vera Cruz
> > ("Mexico") area 1500s, they are known to be the first authentic Pilgram families of
> > the "USofA"
>
> No, you stupid Mexican asshole, that's a LIE.
It's the truth, they preceeded those 2nd Pilgrims in the "USofA".
Don't forget that the southwest is also the USofA.
>
> When "Pilgrim" is capitalized, it refers to MY ancestors
Ghee you're related to everyone on this planet and beyond.
Ramon F Herrera
>
> When "Pilgrim" is capitalized, it refers to MY ancestors who arrived in
> Massachusetts on the Mayflower in 1620. My direct ancestor was Richard
> Warren and I'm related to quite a few of the survivors of that first
> terrible winter when half of the brave colonists died.
>
Do you have scientific evidence of that, Busted-Head Hank? There are
all kinds of people making statements about their heritage and are we
supposed to just take your word for it, and dutifully believe the
claims of a guy (woman? child? robot? New Yorker dog?) who won't even
give their real name on the Internet? Even if you firmly believe those
statements, your pressumed heritage may be actually derived from
adultery, a lie or just wishful thinking.
I suggest you order a DNA testing kit:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
it's only about a hundred bucks, and you can search in the genetic
Jeffersonian databases and the like. Unless you are too afraid (a
feeling particularly spread in the API newsgroup) to hear the truth??
-Ramon (One Who Already Ordered His DNA Testing Kit)
Ray Elizondo
> Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
>
>>
>> When "Pilgrim" is capitalized, it refers to MY ancestors who arrived in
>> Massachusetts on the Mayflower in 1620. My direct ancestor was Richard
>> Warren and I'm related to quite a few of the survivors of that first
>> terrible winter when half of the brave colonists died.
>>
Atlantic and the Mexican and CA illegal aliens crossing the Rio Grande?
At least the ones that crossed the river, do not come to Kill Indians, like
YOUR ancestors did in 1620.
skm...@msn.com
Ramon, what is this fascination you have for Mexicans? I would
understand it if it were your fellow Venezualans. Why do you keep
including yourself with Mexicans, such as "we newcomers"? You said
you are an American citizen now and the "newcomers" in question here
are illegal alien Mexicans for the most part. You have no ties to
Mexico, or so you say. You would defend illegal foreigners in this
country against you newfound country? Why is that Ramon?
Alcibiades
yada yada. Read your post, you are a racist talking about white
motherfuckers. A racist accusing us of racism. Now _there_ is a
worthless & despicable person.
Tell you what asshole. Given that the whole fucking lot of you are
racist, we owe you nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not even the justice
you imagine we owe. In fact I think you owe us for the fattened-up
life you live.
We own absolutely nothing to "latinos", and if we owe anything more to
American Indians, we'll deal with them directly. I can just go right
down to the Rez, or right over to my Indian inlaws to do that. We
don't need Mexican stand-ins for that, let alone shrill liberal
harpies. Suck my Scandinavian cock.
This is our nation asshole, we built it, it is our fathers' legacy to
us. And if we are all racist you and we, there is no reason left not
to put the muzzle in your teeth and make our nation over however we
wish.
Don Gabacho
"...You said
> you are an American citizen now and the "newcomers" in question here
> are illegal alien Mexicans for the most part. You have no ties to
> Mexico, or so you say. You would defend illegal foreigners in this
> country against you newfound country? Why is that Ramon?
Ramon is bent on becoming the President (Pinochet-style) of the United
States of the North American Union.
He needs to first prove himself upon his return to Venezuela and
replacing Chavez.
He will then need at least the appearance of winning as many Hispanic
votes in the United States of the North American Union. He is already
campaigning.
Herrera is a case study in meglo-mania---Latino-style.
Don Gabacho
kcajyer wrote:
> It's the truth, they preceeded those 2nd Pilgrims in the "USofA".
> Don't forget that the southwest is also the USofA.
The "truth" is you are confusing a history of North America as a
geography with the history of the U.S.A. as a nation.
You would be hard put to prove if even the decendents of those
Spaniards, only two generations later, even knew of what was
transpiring in the Thirteen Colonies prior to the American Revolution
or even the American Revolution itslelf: resulting in: the "USofA" (and
not the North American continenent!).
Why your confusion? Because you can't or won't think.
Why do Americans reject you?
Because you are not merely ignorant, which is tolerable, you are
insolently ignorant, which is not tolerable.
Don Gabacho
Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> -Ramon (One Who Already Ordered His DNA Testing Kit)
So, you are of a 'superior' lineage no doubt?
One even born to lord himself over others. Right?
In the Yucatan your name still means burro fodder.
Captain Compassion
>Graphic Queen wrote:
>> So, Mexicans have been in the new England area for 500 years and more?
>> You are so full of shit.
>
>Southwest "USofA", the "Onate" families came from the Vera Cruz
>("Mexico") area
>, 1500s, they are known to be the first authentic Pilgram families of
>the "USofA",
>their names are Abendano, Archuleta, Baca, Barrios, Cadimo, Carvajal,
>Chavez, Cruz,
>Duran, Escarramad, Garcia, Garcia Holgado, Gonzalez Bernal, Gonzalez
>Lobon, Griego, Gutierrez, Hernandez, Herrera, Hinojos, Holguin,
>Hurtado,
>Jimenez, Jorge, Lopez, Lopez Holguin, Lopez Mederos, Lopez de Ocanto,
>Lucero, Lucero de Godoy, Luna, Madrid, Marquez, Martin Serrano, Monroy,
>Montoya, Moran, Naranjo, Pedraza, Perez de Bustillo, Ramirez, del Rio,
>Robledo, Rodriguez, Rodriguez de Salazar, Romer, Ruiz Caceres, Tapia,
>Torres, Valenia, Varela Jaramillo, Varela de Losada, Vasquez, Velasquez
>
They weren't Mexicans they were Spaniards. Next you will be claiming
that Cortez and Pizarro were Mexicans.
>Spanish speakers founded cities across our country, from Florida, and
>the Carolinas and Virginia area, across to the southwestern area of the
>present USA. They
>also explored the west and east coast line.
The Spanish speaking world sure went to shit after the War of the
Spanish Succession.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net
kcajyer
Don Gabacho wrote:
> kcajyer wrote:
>
> > It's the truth, they preceeded those 2nd Pilgrims in the "USofA".
> > Don't forget that the southwest is also the USofA.
>
> The "truth" is you are confusing a history of North America as a
> geography with the history of the U.S.A. as a nation.
Both the 1st Pilgrims (west) and the 2nd Pilgrims (east) were
part of the future USofA.
>
> You would be hard put to prove if even the decendents of those
> Spaniards, only two generations later, even knew of what was
> transpiring in the Thirteen Colonies
You switched from the "Pilgrims" to "Thirteen Colonies" which
was much later. Heck the east Pilgrims2 didn't know what
was "transpiring in the Thirteen colonies", which was a much
later era...about 150 years!
> prior to the American Revolution
> or even the American Revolution itslelf: resulting in: the "USofA" (and
> not the North American continenent!).
See above to answer another of your convoluted statesment.
>
> Why your confusion? Because you can't or won't think.
>
> Why do Americans reject you?
??
kcajyer
Captain Compassion wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2006 13:11:37 -0700, "kcajyer" <kca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Graphic Queen wrote:
> >> So, Mexicans have been in the new England area for 500 years and more?
> >> You are so full of shit.
> >
> >Southwest "USofA", the "Onate" families came from the Vera Cruz
> >("Mexico") area
> >, 1500s, they are known to be the first authentic Pilgram families of
> >the "USofA",
> >their names are Abendano, Archuleta, Baca, Barrios, Cadimo, Carvajal,
> >Chavez, Cruz,
> >Duran, Escarramad, Garcia, Garcia Holgado, Gonzalez Bernal, Gonzalez
> >Lobon, Griego, Gutierrez, Hernandez, Herrera, Hinojos, Holguin,
> >Hurtado,
> >Jimenez, Jorge, Lopez, Lopez Holguin, Lopez Mederos, Lopez de Ocanto,
> >Lucero, Lucero de Godoy, Luna, Madrid, Marquez, Martin Serrano, Monroy,
> >Montoya, Moran, Naranjo, Pedraza, Perez de Bustillo, Ramirez, del Rio,
> >Robledo, Rodriguez, Rodriguez de Salazar, Romer, Ruiz Caceres, Tapia,
> >Torres, Valenia, Varela Jaramillo, Varela de Losada, Vasquez, Velasquez
> >
> They weren't Mexicans they were Spaniards.
Before the end of the conquest, 1492-1536, the blood in the viens
of the "Spanish" was mostly Amerindian. There were not many
Spaniards from the peninsula; however there were many "Spaniards"
who were from the Americas, i.e., born in America, and many
who were Native American.
The Spanish recruited from the Americas, unlike the English and
the French who recruited from their respective countries. Spains
people in colonial "USofA" were born here, and had Amerindian roots.
> Next you will be claiming
> that Cortez and Pizarro were Mexicans.
Cortez and Pizarro were at the beginning of the
conquest early 1500s, the "Mexicans" from Vera Cruz later 1500s
were colonizers not conquistadors. As one historian put it,
"Onate's pioneering work set the stage for the development
of vast sections of what is now the southwestern United States.
In 1598, he led a formidable party of soldiers and settlers, wives
and children, with wagons and livestock, on an epic trip from
Mexico to the upper reaches of the Rio Grande valley (in the
vicinity of present-day Santa Fe).
Captain Compassion
You are talk about ethnic make up. Mexico didn't become Mexico until
1821. Over 200 years after the first Hispanic "Pilgrims" came into
what is now US territory.
>
>>
>> >Spanish speakers founded cities across our country, from Florida, and
>> >the Carolinas and Virginia area, across to the southwestern area of the
>> >present USA. They
>> >also explored the west and east coast line.
>>
>> The Spanish speaking world sure went to shit after the War of the
>> Spanish Succession.
>>
--
kcajyer
Neither "Mexico" or "USofA" the countries were in existance at the
time.
The 1st Pilgrims were Spanish speaking and they came to
the "USofA" long before the eastern 2nd Pilgrims. Actually the
northeastern
Pilgrims (Plymouth) could be considered the 3rd Pilgrims, because the
Spanish
had colonized the southeastern part of the "USofA" as well, long before
the
non Spanish colonizers.
firel...@hotmail.com
> Case in point. For about a year I've frequented a convenience store wherein
> a young man (26 years old) works. He is an East Indian, and has been here
> since he was 16. He is attending college, and recently got married.
> I inquired IF the young lady he married was the young lady I had
> seen in the store a few weeks earlier. ( An exotic poured into a pair
> of blue jeans.) No he replied that was his cousin, his wife just came in
> from India.
That's an odd (but not unique) cultural quirk.
The previous owner of my house was from India. A
couple of issues of an English-language Indian
newspaper came for him after he left, and the back
page was covered with marriage ads, usually from
US-college-educated Indian women who had to find
a guy from India that their family would let them marry.
My house's previous owner was quirky in his own
way. He came over to attend a US college in the 1970's,
with a dream of returning to his homeland with a degree
as a nutritionist to help his country find ways to feed
itself. Once he finished his degree, he kept finding
reasons not to go back just yet...first there was a
Master's program, then a PhD, then an opportunity
opened up to teach at a US university. Each step
seemed a great way to get closer to his dream, to
better prepare himself to come back to his homeland.
Eventually he retired and had to choose between
going back to India and going to an Indian retirement
community in Texas. Something had always come
up that made him wait a little longer before going to
his homeland and fulfilling his dream...he chose
Texas.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Captain Compassion
Were the Norse pilgrims?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Spanish speakers founded cities across our country, from Florida, and
>> >> >the Carolinas and Virginia area, across to the southwestern area of the
>> >> >present USA. They
>> >> >also explored the west and east coast line.
>> >>
>> >> The Spanish speaking world sure went to shit after the War of the
>> >> Spanish Succession.
--
Don Gabacho
kcajyer wrote:
> Don Gabacho wrote:
> > kcajyer wrote:
> >
> > > It's the truth, they preceeded those 2nd Pilgrims in the "USofA".
> > > Don't forget that the southwest is also the USofA.
> >
> > The "truth" is you are confusing a history of North America as a
> > geography with the history of the U.S.A. as a nation.
>
> Both the 1st Pilgrims (west) and the 2nd Pilgrims (east) were
> part of the future USofA.
"The future USofA" begins with the Mayflower Compact of 1620 (the first
Constitution of the first permenently settled colony), followed by the
"Charter of Rhode Island" (establishing Freedom of Religion) in 1638,
the "Fundamental Orders" of Connecticut in 1639, etc., and onward to
the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the U.S.
Constitution and its RatificationS by the Thirteen Original Colonies to
form the U.S.A.
There was absolutelly no associations, contributions, anything at all
formative to the "USofA" as a nation from any Spanish so-called
"pilgrims" or colonies outside, or even inside, the Original Thirteen
Colonies.
> > You would be hard put to prove if even the decendents of those
> > Spaniards, only two generations later, even knew of what was
> > transpiring in the Thirteen Colonies
>
> You switched from the "Pilgrims" to "Thirteen Colonies" which
> was much later....
The very foundation of the U.S.A. rests on those "Pilgrims" and the
compacts, constitutions and evolving institutions resulting in the very
Constitution of the USofA itself.
Absolutely nothing from any Spanish Colony which probably knew nothing
of it even as it transpired.
"..Heck the east Pilgrims2 didn't know what
> was "transpiring in the Thirteen colonies", which was a much
> later era...about 150 years!
It is the very MAYFLOWER COMPACT of those American Pilgrims which
begins the short, formative history that results in the USofA.
> > prior to the American Revolution
> > or even the American Revolution itslelf: resulting in: the "USofA" (and
> > not the North American continenent!).
>
> See above to answer another of your convoluted statesment.
The conception and formation of the USofA has a definite history.
No Spanish colony had anything to do with it.
Learn U.S. History and stop inflicting your nonsense.
Alcibiades
wrote:
I think the irritating thing about this young muchacho for me is that
he is _exactly_ like most of the mojados I've known. That is, he isn't
here being a usenet freakazoid. Freakazoids have an excuse, everyone
understands they are special and not playing with the full deck, and
they understand it too. His way of thinking on the other hand (if that
is thinking) is just perfectly typical of the younger ones I used to
know. It is normal for them.
Some of them I liked when they weren't being "insolently ignorant",
but they'd always come back to that eventually. Like once a week
minimum. I liked them some of the time, but I really would have liked
nothing more than for their families to pack them back to Mexico where
they obviously belong. All of them sorta being ignorant together,
happy in their shared cultural delusions and being ruled over by
mexican spaniards with three-digit IQs, resembling a human ant colony
for all their differences, getting way too worked up about soccer
games, dying of chorizo blockage in their late-40s, etc.
The US is an Enlightenment-based nation, that is its cultural and
political foundation. This fellow is perfectly average for Mexican
peasant stock, they are not up to that way of imagining society and
themselves, not US immigrant material.
Head Bustin' Hank
ZeMascouflatte wrote:
> The only "Real Americans" are the Native Americans.
Well, gawsh, Gomer, I'm real confused now. Why do all those Sioux and
Navajos and Apaches live on reservations instead of in cities? Why are
the reservations named
after the Indian tribes instead of being called "American
reservations"?
> The one this asshole's 'ancestors' exterminated.
Some of my ancestors *were* Native Americans from the Seneca and
Cherokee tribes. But "Native American" is just a politically correct
label that Real Americans use so modern Indians won't feel excluded
from wider American life.
The psychological and social development of the Indians prevented them
from having an understanding participation in American political and
social life during the first 300 years of our country's existence, and
Indians have only recently figured out that, if they want to prosper in
America, they will have to think like Americans, act like Americans,
talk like Americans and live like Americans.
And, most modern Indians have figured out that they owe patriotic duty
to America, so they serve in the military to give something back to
America for what America
has to offer them.
America doesn't set out a free basket of opportunity, the Indians had
to figure that out, they had to go out and find where the opportunities
were in American business and education. They found them on this side
of the border, not in Mexico, so they don't call themselves "Mexicans".
In that way, they are a lot smarter than Mexicans, who have no right to
breathe American air.
> funny nowadays how most anglos descend straight from the mayflower
> passengers.
Many Real Americans can trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower
Pilgrims because the Pilgrims were educated and literate people.
Mexicans might claim descent from some Spanish conquistador because
somebody in their family tree once adopted a Hispanic surname.
That can be compared to a Negro whose surname is Washington. Everybody
knows that George Washington had no descendants, but the surname is
popular amongst Negros.
And, just in cse you might decide to jump on me about being "racist",
some of my ancestors were Negros and they named their children after
George Washington and Bejamin Franklin. One of my Negro relatives even
named her daughter "America".
But I have never heard of a Mexican with so much patriotism she named
her kid "Mexico"!!!!!
> forget the irish escaping famines, italians eating shit at
> home, greedy english slave owners, other european leeches, without
> forgetting the deported, the prostitutes and other thieves forced to the
> colonies.
Oh yeah? What about my Sephardic grandfather, who had leave Spain
because he was a Jew? His sons came to Maryland in the 17th century,
married free Negro women who were dumped on the American coast by
Spanish slavers. Their descendants are related to many famous Southern
families, like Knox and Ives, for instance.
> and in their pure tradition of hypocrite bastards, now they want to
> close the door to immigration.
Real American never wanted the door to immigration to be opened at all.
Real Americans built America for themselves and their children, they
never wanted all the scumbags of the world to come here and trash
America.
> 1- you take by force a land that belong to someone else
If you buy a house, and the previous tenant won't leave, what do you
do? You get the sheriff to come out and throw him out on the street.
So far as America belonging to the Indians, it didn't belong to them.
In fact, the Indians denied that the land could belong to anybody. The
Indians believed that if they couldn't pick something up and carry it
away, it didn't belong to anybody. They compared land ownership to
owning a river or a lake or owning the wind or the sun or the rain.
It took centuries for the Indians to figure out land ownership. They
thought that trade goods offered in fee simple for real estate were
gifts cementing alliances against other tribes.
> 2- kill, enslave, round up in reserves as many as you can
The American government moved the hostile tribes out of the borders of
the USA into what were called "Indian Territories" and then onto
reservations. The hostile tribes were alien nations and the government
provided for the aliens to live somewhere else.
Mexico is an alien nation and Mexicans are aliens. They need to go back
to their alien country and live their alien lifestyle there.
> 3- bring in more white motherfuckers
The original founders of America were from the British Isles and
Northern Europe. That's the kind of people America wants.
> 4- when immigration shift from 'caucasian' to asian sub-continent
> (pakistan, india, etc...), start to change the rules
Real Americans want to live and work amongst other Real Americans.
India and Pakistan should develop their industry and infrastructure to
provide a decent life for their own people instead of exporting their
poverty.
> 5- still let some mexicans in to do the dirty or physically demanding
> jobs
There are about 15 million Negros living in America. They have a right
to be here and they are under-employed. They can do the jobs that
"Americans don't want to do" or they can go back to Africa and check
out that scene and decide what they want to do.
> 6- when the shit hit the fan, reverse to your natural tendencies: kkk
> nostalgia, talk like the nazis did in germany 36 (talk like if you were
> real men, keep people in fear with lies and fabrications), build fences
> and watchtowers on the border, etc... etc...
The KKK were trying to regain control of the South after the chaos of
Reconstruction.
Once the Republican party agreed to keep its influence out of the
South, the Redeemers did regain control and they kept it for 90 years.
The National Social German Workers Party was trying to keep
international socialists from controlling their country. So they fought
a war to preserve their nation and wound up losing half their country
to the communists for 40 years. If Hitler had only waited until Germany
was stronger, they might have pushed the Russians back behind the urals
permanently.
> mayflower. pilgrims. wake up! this is the 21st century. nobody gives a
> shit about where you pretend to come from.
I give s shit about America. My ancestors fought and died for America,
and if that's what it takes to ethnically cleanse America, I'm willing
to shed blood too.
> they just want a job. they want a decent life.
If mexicans want a better life, let them fix Mexico's problems instead
of invading America.
> but hey, if you could understand that, you would not be spewing your
> trash and lies across the net by cross-posting as much as you do.
I understand very well what is going on. Forty million Mexican
parasites are trying to live in MY country, and I want them to GO HOME!
> flying booger is your nickname?
What's in a name? A patriot by any other name is still a patriot.
> my "american heritage dictionary" (appropriate name in your case):
> booger - Slang
> A worthless, despicable person.
Pay attention, dipshit. You can pick your nose and you can pick your
friends, but you can't pick your friends' noses.
If I'm driving my car and I pick my nose and flick the booger out the
window and it lands on your windshield, I don't care whether you eat my
booger or not, I'm done with it.
ZeMascouflatte
"Head Bustin' Hank" <flying...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The psychological and social development of the Indians prevented them
this is pure nazi propaganda. the german nazi used the same technique to
convince their willing fellows that jews, gypsies and other ethnic
groups were "inferior".
your discourse is exactly the same!
>I'm real confused now. Why do all those Sioux and
>Navajos and Apaches live on reservations instead of in cities?
because you put them there. you think they went there by choice?
basically what you're saying is: if they so stupid, well fuck them.
i don't know if you're confused, but you certainly come across as
something very close, if not, a so-called white supremacist.
> And, most modern Indians have figured out that they owe patriotic duty
>to America, so they serve in the military to give something back to
>America for what America has to offer them
do you apply this reasoning also to blacks and other minorities. for a
lot of people, joining the arm forces a ticket out of their social
condition. your hypocrisy goes as far as offering fast track citizenship
if the same mexicans you hate so much join the arm forces.
in that way, your system start really to smell like the end of the roman
empire. have your dirty work done by proxy first, then find a way to
have the lower social classes go get killed for you protecting your
interests. you say "mexicans have no right to breathe american air?" now
you even take possession of the air.?
>And, just in cse you might decide to jump on me about being "racist",
>some of my ancestors were Negros
which make you and your ranting even more despicable.
Don Gabacho
Alcibiades wrote:
Alcibiades wrote:
> The US is an Enlightenment-based nation, that is its cultural and
> political foundation. This fellow is perfectly average for Mexican
> peasant stock, they are not up to that way of imagining society and
> themselves, not US immigrant material.
Their ignorance is bounded by their government's willingness to
enlighten them which, given their government's state of enlightenment,
leaves them so hopelessly ignorant they have no idea how ignorant they
are.
That Bush and Handlers has, with their 'LatinAmericanist' stipulations
for federal education grants and even faith-based funding of, in
particularl, ESL and U.S. Civics, is only one more indictment against
Bush and Handlers to, in lieu of even education, adopt Mexico's
spurrious and self-serving endoctrinations posing as education to
futher their own interests only.
Why? It is easier to rule people who are ignorant.
This kcajyer eats up the pablum dished out as education so
enthusiastically not to realize he has simply been conditioned, for not
only himself but also his compatriots, to be herded around like the
chattel they have always allowed themsleves to be.
Head Bustin' Hank
ZeMascouflatte wrote:
> In article <1151938897.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Head Bustin' Hank" <flying...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The psychological and social development of the Indians prevented them
>
> this is pure nazi propaganda. the german nazi used the same technique to
> convince their willing fellows that jews, gypsies and other ethnic
> groups were "inferior".
You don't know what you're talking about.You're jumping from the Indian
problem to the Jewish Question.
Racial antisemitism and political antisemitism are two completely
different subjects.
Racial antisemitism has to do with the discredited theories of the
European racialists who measured the proportions of the skulls of
various races and claimed that there wasn't enough room inside for a
large intelligent brain to exist.
Jews with long narrow skulls have proven over and over that there is
enough room in such a skull for a cunning, sly intelligence capable of
subverting the politics of a nation of people with wider skulls that
contain larger brains.
Narrow-skulled Jews succeeded in discrediting the racial antisemitics
long before the
Nazis were ever thought of. Adolf Hitler was just a child in 1900, and
he had not begun to despise Jews at that age.
Political antisemitism originated in FRANCE, and some French
nationalists say that if the Germans hadn't exterminated the Jews, they
would have. The Jews tried to take over France for 100 years and almost
succeeded.
Back to Germany. The illegal alien Ashkenazi Jews that plagued Germany
for 50 years before the Nazis took power were NOT ethnically Jews, like
my Sephardic Jew grandfather.
The illegal alien Jews in Germany were actually as "Caucasian" as any
German, they were the so-called "Red Jews" of the Caucasus, a
*Japhetic* people who had converted to Judaism around 800 AD.
They had learned about Judaism from Sephardic Jews and it sounded
attractive, especially the part about redeeming Jerusalem from the
Turks. The Red Jews even tried to capture Jerusalem around 1200 AD with
a "Jewish Crusade" (is *that* an oxymoron, or what?) which failed, it
only got as far as Syria.
The Red Jews later started a socialist movement in Europe, supported
Karl Marx (he was a Red Jew) and tried to overthrow the Weimar
Republic.
Hitler was initially against anti-semitism. He thought that German Jews
were just Germans with a different religion. One of my grandfathers was
a German Jew.
But Hitler first came in contact with Ashkenazi Jews in Austria, before
WWI and he realized that the Red Jews were a completely alien bunch who
were trying to live like they had lived in the 16th century. The
Ashkenazim were a sort of Jewish Taliban, acting and dressing like
their ancestors had dressed centuries before and following charismatic
rabbis that claimed to be prophets.
The Gypsies were actually from India. They had been mercenary fighters
in western Asia, and, for some unknown reason they headed west instead
of returning to India.
The Gypsies entered Europe around 1000 AD and they began running a con
game on gullible Catholics during the Crusades. They convinced
Catholics that they were actually *Egyptians*, descendants of the
pharoahs and that they had been forced out of "Little Egypt" by the
Terrible Turks. They couldn't show exactly where "Little Egypt" was on
a map, but it didn't matter, the Catholic peasants couldn't read a map
anyway.
The Catholic peasants gave their pennies to the Gypsies and they have
been running scams ever since. In the USA, they do insurance scams and
they sell their prepubescent daughters. They move around the country in
travel trailers instead of horse drawn caravans as they did in Europe
for a thousand years.
Gypsies operated fortune telling rackets and mobile whore houses in
their encampments. Gypsies are still a social problem in Eastern
Europe, living in tenements and depending on welfare.
to prospective husbands
> >I'm real confused now. Why do all those Sioux and
> >Navajos and Apaches live on reservations instead of in cities?
>
> because you put them there. you think they went there by choice?
The Sioux, Navajo, and Apaches are living in the same areas where they
lived for hundreds of years before Americans encountered them.
"Sioux" is a name given to the Dakotah tribe by their enemies. "Sioux"
means "cut" and the Dakotahs would cut their enemy's achilles tendon so
they couldn't walk.
"Dakotah" means "Ally". The Dakotahs were a woodland tribe who lived in
Minnesota before the USA was ever founded. They moved across the
Missouri River onto the plains of South Dakota around 1750. Some liked
the plains so much they stayed there and migrated back and forth
between the Missouri and the Black Hills for 100 years.
They were called "Lakotahs" as the language changed slightly. One of my
cousins is a Lakotah.
My grandmother, who was descended from a Sephardic Jew, free Negros and
Cherokees, was born in South Dakota the same year it became a state. By
that time the US Army was requiring the Lakotahs and the Cheyennes and
the Crows to stay on the reservations provided to them.
Some tribes refused to stay on the reservations. My great grandfather
was living near Fort Robertson in Nebraska, about 90 miles from Wounded
Knee when the last great episode of Indian pacification took place.
Wounded Knee is on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The Lakotah and the
Cheyenne gathered near Chadron, Nebraska for about 100 years, but the
government told them they had to give up the nomadic lifestyle and stay
in one place.
America may be a large country, but a group of hunter gatherers like
the Lakotah could not be allowed to keep Nebraska and Montana and South
Dakota from being developed by American farmers.
My great grandfather's brother had 1200 acres of fully improved
homestead. He bred horses and sold them to horsetraders to be shipped
east.
> basically what you're saying is: if they so stupid, well fuck them.
No, I am NOT staying that the Indians were "stupid". I said the social
and psychological development of the Indians prevented them from
understanding the nature of their relationship with the Europeans.
> i don't know if you're confused, but you certainly come across as
> something very close, if not, a so-called white supremacist.
And why shouldn't the descendants of pale-skinned northern Europeans
expect to control the country that their ancestors pioneered and fought
for?
There is a country for Mexicans. It's called "Mexico". If Mexicans want
to live in a place like Mexico, they should stay there, they shouldn't
sneak into America and try to claim they once lived here, because they
didn't live here. There was NO America before WHITE PEOPLE made it so.
There was NO AMERICA for Mexicans to try to steal until MY ancestors
created America for ME and my cousins.
>
> > And, most modern Indians have figured out that they owe patriotic duty
> >to America, so they serve in the military to give something back to
> >America for what America has to offer them
>
> do you apply this reasoning also to blacks and other minorities.
Say. Do YOU know about the "shift" key? Or about the question mark key?
> for a lot of people, joining the arm forces a ticket out of their social
> condition.
Oh, yeah. Jay Gould once said that he could hire half the poor to kill
the other half.
> your hypocrisy goes as far as offering fast track citizenship
> if the same mexicans you hate so much join the arm forces.
With any luck, Private First Class Pancho Parasite will encounter an
IED and come home in a body bag and we won't have to support his
Parasitic Progeny. :-)
The opportunity to loot and rape has always attracted morons that
couldn't hold down a job. And the Army has often been a place for
mexicans to go to avoid going to prison. Wonderful people, those
Mexicans.
> in that way, your system start really to smell like the end of the roman
> empire. have your dirty work done by proxy first, then find a way to
> have the lower social classes go get killed for you protecting your
> interests.
That's the way the social class structure works. The "haves" enjoy the
fruits of the labors of the "have nots". There will always be morons
who depend upon the brain power of the affluent upper classes, so forty
million Mexicans have snuck into America to work for the rich
Americans.
> you say "mexicans have no right to breathe american air?" now
> you even take possession of the air.?
Yes. It's MY air. Are you breathing it? Then STOP IT!
>
> >And, just in cse you might decide to jump on me about being "racist",
> >some of my ancestors were Negros
>
> which make you and your ranting even more despicable.
The First Amendment guarantees me freedom of speech. You don't like it?
Tough.
Head Bustin' Hank
kcajyer wrote:
> Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
> > When "Pilgrim" is capitalized, it refers to MY ancestors
>
> Ghee you're related to everyone on this planet and beyond.
"Ghee" is clarified Yak butter. Tibetans drink tea with ghee in it.
I am related to a lot of people. I even have cousins in Mexico. They
aren't welcome in MY America if they don't have the legal right to be
here.
ZeMascouflatte
"Head Bustin' Hank" <flying...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The First Amendment guarantees me freedom of speech.
funny. a stupid dumb shit motherfucker nazi like you touting the first
amendment like if it will validate his spewing of nonsense. you are just
an average clod without any formal education in political sciences or
history (don't bother, it's obvious at reading your pathetic way of
expressing yourself.) frequent cross-posting on the newsgroups of
propaganda and racist slogans doesn't transform them in truth (by the
way, an other technique well developed by an other nazi, famous this
one: joeseph goebbels, and adopted by the village idiot and his handlers
before the 2000 elections).
you are truly pitiful. but rejoice! you score a big victory: i put you
on my filter list
Alcibiades
wrote:
>
Remember, one of the reasons they eat it up so thoroughly, such that
they find it impossible to understand otherwise, is that they are not
very intelligent people on average. I don't mean education, I mean
intrinsic intelligence, their mean IQ.
IQ and the Wealth of Nations -- Lynn and Vanhanen -- data table of
national mean IQ studies
Mexico 86.5 "Native American &
mestizo children in southern Mexico" - 87 comes from blending white 96
(9% of population) and this 86.5.
Interestingly, notice that Mexican whites have a median IQ almost that
of US whites.)
Mexican-Americans 88 Mexican children in California
"representative sample", Mexican American children in Texas
United States 100
Says it all. Racist, eh? Too bad.
Head Bustin' Hank
Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
> > When "Pilgrim" is capitalized, it refers to MY ancestors who arrived in
> > Massachusetts on the Mayflower in 1620. > >
>
It's unnecessary to use DNA testing to prove my descent. Wills that
have already been probated in court establish my descent and the
history books take me all the way back to Henry II.
> There are all kinds of people making statements about their heritage and are we
> supposed to just take your word for it, and dutifully believe the
> claims of a guy (woman? child? robot? New Yorker dog?) who won't even
> give their real name on the Internet?
What other choice do you have? You don't dare meet me face to face.
> Even if you firmly believe those
> statements, your pressumed heritage may be actually derived from
> adultery, a lie or just wishful thinking.
Oh, I firmly believe what I say, and I take you at face value, Ramon.
it's just that your face value isn't worth that much. Many researchers
are very happy to find my surname in the family tree. We are so well
documented, it makes their Mayflower ancestry trace easy.
>
> I suggest you order a DNA testing kit:
Yeah, the webmaster of our family database has just been touting DNA
kits for some reason. But why? As you said, nobody really knows who
their actual father was, and where would a negative test leave somebody
who had gone through all the effort to research 12 generations back to
the mother country?
That would be like throwing the jigsaw puzzle back in the box where
there are hundreds of other jigsaw puzzles all mixed up. And, it still
wouldn't change the basic fact that the Pilgrims were some (but not
all) of the people on the Mayflower.
The Onate bunch weren't Pilgrims and their weren't pilgrims either.
They were in the Rio Grande valley to conquer and exploit the native
people and steal everything they could lay their hands on.
Head Bustin' Hank
Ray Elizondo wrote:
> > Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
> >> When "Pilgrim" is capitalized, it refers to MY ancestors who arrived in
> >> Massachusetts on the Mayflower in 1620. My direct ancestor was Richard
> >> Warren and I'm related to quite a few of the survivors of that first
> >> terrible winter when half of the brave colonists died.
> >>
> What is the difference between your ancestors illegal aliens crossing the
> Atlantic and the Mexican and CA illegal aliens crossing the Rio Grande?
The Pilgrims weren't illegal aliens. They had a charter from King James
I of England.
As king, James I had the right to grant his subjects permission to go
anywhere in his empire. The Atlantic coast of America was in his
empire.
The illegal alien Mexicans, however, do not have anybody's permission
to cross the border into the United States. The Mexican government
should be patrolling their side of the border and stopping their people
from crossing, but they aren't doing it because they want to use
America as a dumping place for their poor people.
>
> At least the ones that crossed the river, do not come to Kill Indians, like
> YOUR ancestors did in 1620.
No, actually the Mayflower stopped at Cape Cod because they were
running low on supplies.
They meant to go further west, towards Long Island, but they decided
that
Massachusetts was good enough and they all got together and signed an
agreement called "The Mayflower Compact" whereby they pledged to do
their best to work together and make a go of the bad situation.
The Indians were not afraid of the Pilgrims and the Pilgrims were not
afraid of the Indians. But the Indians were afraid of other Indian
tribes in Massachusetts and were willing to make military alliances
with the English settlers.
The Naumkeags in particular were glad to have the English around. The
Naumkeags felt safe with the English there to protect them.
Don Gabacho
Alcibiades wrote:
> IQ and the Wealth of Nations -- Lynn and Vanhanen -- data table of
> national mean IQ studies
>
> Mexico 86.5 "Native American &
> mestizo children in southern Mexico" - 87 comes from blending white 96
> (9% of population) and this 86.5.
> Interestingly, notice that Mexican whites have a median IQ almost that
> of US whites.)
>
> Mexican-Americans 88 Mexican children in California
> "representative sample", Mexican American children in Texas
>
> United States 100
>
> Says it all. Racist, eh? Too bad.
Well, where did Lynn and Vanhanen find any "whites" in Mexico?
Other than tourists or retirees, the only "whites" in Mexico I ever saw
were Mennonites who were certainly smart enough to keep their mouths
shut, being resident to Mexico as they are, concerning Mexican
intelligence quotients.
Those Mennonites simply work and take care of themselves exceptionally
well on the same god-awful terrain Mexicans don't.
When I've read on this ng that Fox did not appear to be Mexican, I just
couldn't help from knowing that the person who wrote doesn't know the
difference between Mexico's indigenous and Mexico's creoles whose even
Spanish lineage was a hodgepodge of Iberian, Latin, Moor and whatever
else even before mixing that up with Mexico's distinct (even from each
other) indigenous.
I found that the lower-class Mexicans (indigenous or predominantly
indigenous) will understand and accept something new to them with far
greater facility and good will far more than Mexico's truley atrophied
(at times lighter) upper class.
Mexico's lower-class are even intelligent enough to know that, while
they have a lot to learn, their upper-class patrons are intellectually
absolute frauds parading only their "licenses" (so-called diplomas).
In ESL classes, even illiterate indigenous would learn English rather
quickly, while the Mexicans (creoles) struggled, like Davido Edweenie,
memorizing what they read in books without comprehending the very
communications words are only ingredient to.
As for "racism," it has always been Mexico's lower-class (and never
Mexico's upper-class) who would agree with me that different peoples,
even genetically, have different propensities to succeed in different
capacities.
They would also agree that anyone committed so much to open-mindedness
to use 85% of his or her intellience quotient of 86% will surpass, in
matters requiring even intellect, a person committed instead to such
closed-mindedness to use only 80% of their 90% intellegence quotient.
I would thus instruct nimbleness of mind as much as anything else.
They would also agree that no matter the different propensities
different peoples have in intelligence, physcial attributes, talents,
etc., all people deserve dignity excepting, of course, those who would
use whatever they have to, like their patrons, simply rape eveyone else
and rape especially those who they regard as their inferiors.
Not long ago, NOVA had two Nobel prize winning biolgisits discussing
the current breakthroughs in DNA research. Their topic was essentially
on not only how different peoples have evolved such greater, different
attributes that some groups are far more resiliant to certain
diseases---genetically---than others but also far more apt to survive
certain conditions than others.
One of their conclusions, in regard to Darwin's survival of the fitest,
is that the most aggressive, sucessful marauding, domineering types of
the past are, like the dinosaurs, going lose out.
Both warned that what is now being found in the studies of the genetic
propensities for the human brain between different groups is going to
surpise a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't look good for the Mexica or those who would
emulate them (the Bushes).
pug
wrote:
>Time for a reality check...
>
>http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=39&url_article_id=16795&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2
>
>-Ramon F Herrera
...and they can be gone tomorrow with one simple act.
Deportation.
pug
"Play cricket, perhaps. That's how we shall save the race. Eh?
It's a possible thing? But saving the race is nothing in itself.
As I say, that's only being rats. It's saving our knowledge and adding
to it is the thing."
"The War of the Worlds" H.G. Wells 1898
----------------------------------
Misanthropes Are People Too (unfortunately)
http://home.earthlink.net/~misein-anthropos/
kcajyer
> kcajyer wrote:
> > Don Gabacho wrote:
> > > kcajyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's the truth, they preceeded those 2nd Pilgrims in the "USofA".
> > > > Don't forget that the southwest is also the USofA.
> > >
> > > The "truth" is you are confusing a history of North America as a
> > > geography with the history of the U.S.A. as a nation.
> >
> > Both the 1st Pilgrims (west) and the 2nd Pilgrims (east) were
> > part of the future USofA.
>
> "The future USofA" begins with the Mayflower Compact of 1620 (the first
> Constitution of the first permenently settled colony),
It was *Not* the first Constitution, trying to smoke and mirrors again,
eh?
You would like it to be for the sake of this argument, but isn't so.
> followed by the
> "Charter of Rhode Island" (establishing Freedom of Religion) in 1638,
> the "Fundamental Orders" of Connecticut in 1639, etc., and onward to
> the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the U.S.
> Constitution and its RatificationS by the Thirteen Original Colonies to
> form the U.S.A.
>
> There was absolutelly no associations, contributions, anything at all
> formative to the "USofA" as a nation from any Spanish so-called
> "pilgrims" or colonies outside, or even inside, the Original Thirteen
> Colonies.
Yes there was, monies were collected from the west "USofA" which
was Spanish speaking, and also collections from "Mexico" which
are also Spanish speaking. When you count all the contributions
from Galvez in Louisianna, the Spanish speakers up and down
the Mississippi, there was a considerable amount given go the
Rebel English colonies. All this is documented by the USofA.
gov and other sources.
>
> > > You would be hard put to prove if even the decendents of those
> > > Spaniards, only two generations later, even knew of what was
> > > transpiring in the Thirteen Colonies
> >
> > You switched from the "Pilgrims" to "Thirteen Colonies" which
> > was much later....
>
> The very foundation of the U.S.A. rests on those "Pilgrims" and the
> compacts, constitutions and evolving institutions resulting in the very
> Constitution of the USofA itself.
The U.S. Constitution has no connection to the "Mayflower Compact"
as you stated.
>
> Absolutely nothing from any Spanish Colony which probably knew nothing
> of it even as it transpired.
Ah, yes they did, Spanish speakers may have had more to
breaking up the English Colonies than you would like to
concede. Think; the Spanish speakers just about surrounded
the small 13 colonies, Spanish speakers were to the south
in Florida, Louisiana, Carolinas, Alabama (Spanish troops assisted
fledgling colonies and defeated English troops.), and numerous
other states.
BTW Connecticut 1525: Estaban Gomes and crew, Spanish speakers
explore from Cape Charles to Cape Code and the Hudson, Delaware
and the Connecticut rivers
I digressed; back to the colonies. Spanish speakers were extremly
friendly with President George Washington's, invited to special
funtions, ect.
They knew exactly what was transpiring during the American Revolution
and
knee deep in battles agains the English, making it easier for the
Rebeling colonies to succeed.
>
> "..Heck the east Pilgrims2 didn't know what
> > was "transpiring in the Thirteen colonies", which was a much
> > later era...about 150 years!
>
> It is the very MAYFLOWER COMPACT of those American Pilgrims which
> begins the short, formative history that results in the USofA.
The "USofA" is also Florida, and other parts of the southEAST,
and the west of course and who were Spanish speakers.
Don Gabacho
kcajyer wrote:
> Don Gabacho wrote:
> > kcajyer wrote:
> Yes there was, monies were collected from the west "USofA" which
> was Spanish speaking, and also collections from "Mexico" which
> are also Spanish speaking. When you count all the contributions
> from Galvez in Louisianna, the Spanish speakers up and down
> the Mississippi, there was a considerable amount given go the
> Rebel English colonies. All this is documented by the USofA.
> gov and other sources.
Kcajer, I am aware of the role the Spanish Crown, including its loyal
subjects in the New World, had during the America's War of Indpendence.
It was not to help the rebelling colonies form a United States rather
than defeat British colonization of the New World so as, to eventually,
have it all for itself.
If you believe the King of Spain wished a democratic republic of the
speakers of any language in the New World: you are as wrong as your
distortion that any Spanish-speaking settlers were "pilgrims" formative
to a "USofA."
If, and when, there were Spaniards in the New World genuinely
contributing to a valid independence of the rebelling colonies from
England, it would only have been in anticipation of Spain's creolles
in Mexico to themsleves stage, not a liberal war of Indpendence, which
was America's, rather than a reactionary one as eventually was Mexico's
to assume the same, even worse, trappings of the Spanish Crown for
themselves---assert the same territorial claims of Spain's and
subjugate the terrain, and whatever form of government the successful
revolutionists may have fashioned, to their own rule, just as they are
doing even now.
The very founding of Georgia as a colony was in part to serve as a
buffer zone against the few Spaniards in Florida.
The very failures of the first attempt to colonize in the New World at
all, in Jamestown, is now generally believed by historians to have been
sabotaged by Spaniards who came up from the fort of St. Augustine to
annihilate the settlers with anthrax.
There was no love between Spaniards in the New World, the English or
the English who intially rebelled as Englishmen.
When Santa Anna declared war against Texas (which was not supported by
Mexico's central government), for its, like the Yucatan's, successful
secession , he even vowed he would not only vanquish Texas once and for
all but also plant the Mexican flag on the Capitol in Washington!
> > > > You would be hard put to prove if even the decendents of those
> > > > Spaniards, only two generations later, even knew of what was
> > > > transpiring in the Thirteen Colonies
> > >
> > > You switched from the "Pilgrims" to "Thirteen Colonies" which
> > > was much later....
> >
> > The very foundation of the U.S.A. rests on those "Pilgrims" and the
> > compacts, constitutions and evolving institutions resulting in the very
> > Constitution of the USofA itself.
>
> The U.S. Constitution has no connection to the "Mayflower Compact"
> as you stated.
Yes it does Kcayher. Although the Pigrims had indentured themselves as
servants (for six years) and were supposedly to have been governed by
the terms of the servitude, they nonetheless agreed to their Mayflower
Compact to govern themselves. It was the first move toward
'independence.'
> > Absolutely nothing from any Spanish Colony which probably knew nothing
> > of it even as it transpired.
>
> Ah, yes they did, Spanish speakers may have had more to
> breaking up the English Colonies than you would like to
> concede. Think; the Spanish speakers just about surrounded
> the small 13 colonies,...
All fifty of them in Florida? One hundred? In Florida. Perhaps a few in
Mobile which was situated not even then on any border with the
fledgling U.S.?
You are daft.
As it is, you had been making claims for a colony of "Pilgrims1" from
Veracruz which arrived in the S.W. of present-day U.S.A.
It was to just such situated, Spanish colonies to which I was
referring.
The fact is Kcajyer, that if it weren't for, later, the U.S. Army
having pacified the Indians from Texas to Arizona, not only would there
have been no survivors of the few "Spanish-speakers" north of the Rio
Grande, the very states of Mexico which now constitute Mexico's border
would not have survived!
When Kearny of the first U.S. Army contingent arrived to what is now
New Mexico, the Apaches even offered an alliance to raid Mexico. The
Commanche ranged at will to within 20 miles of Mexico City itself. Even
by then, the situation for Mexico's Creole hidalgos in even Northern
Mexico had become utterly hopeless.
"... Spanish speakers were to the south
> in Florida, Louisiana, Carolinas, Alabama (Spanish troops assisted
> fledgling colonies and defeated English troops.), and numerous
> other states.
>
> BTW Connecticut 1525: Estaban Gomes and crew, Spanish speakers.
"Spanish-speakers"? For SPANIARDS?
> explore from Cape Charles to Cape Code and the Hudson, Delaware
> and the Connecticut rivers
So what? I explored tracts in the Yucatan jungle where no
non-indigenous tred before.
Does that make it mine, much less someone who just happens to be
speaking English some six-hundred years later?
> I digressed; back to the colonies. Spanish speakers were extremly
> friendly with President George Washington's, invited to special
> funtions, ect.
War does make strange bedfellows.
> They knew exactly what was transpiring during the American Revolution
> and
> knee deep in battles agains the English, making it easier for the
> Rebeling colonies to succeed.
And these Spaniards---ooops "Pilgrims1"---arrived to Washington from
the S.W.?
> > "..Heck the east Pilgrims2 didn't know what
> > > was "transpiring in the Thirteen colonies", which was a much
> > > later era...about 150 years!
> >
> > It is the very MAYFLOWER COMPACT of those American Pilgrims which
> > begins the short, formative history that results in the USofA.
>
> The "USofA" is also Florida, and other parts of the southEAST,
> and the west of course and who were Spanish speakers.
Florida became part of a U.S.A. which already existed.
Do you even know what a "nation" is?
A "nation" is not a mere geography.
If the U.S.A. did not exist, the North American Continent would still
exist. If, by happenchance, it were 13 colonies in Africa which
revolted, the U.S.A. would be the United States of Africa!
You don't even know what to be an American is.
What even contitutes the U.S.A. and Americanism.
It is, in part because you still haven't figured out what being a
Mexican is.
What even constitutes Mexico or Mexicanism.
A nation is not a mere terrain where, like dogs, some people had simply
came by and pissed to mark their territory.
In the future, you would do better not to communicate on issues as if
they were pissing contests: 'But the Spaniards pissed their first!'
Don Gabacho
kcajyer wrote:
> Neither "Mexico" or "USofA" the countries were in existance at the
> time.
> The 1st Pilgrims were Spanish speaking and they came to
> the "USofA" long before the eastern 2nd Pilgrims....
Hotshot, if the "USofA" did not, as you say, exist at the time, how did
the so-called "1st Pilgrims who were Spanish-speaking come to "the
'USofA' long before" anyone esle?
"... Actually..." you're a hopeless idiot.
kcajyer
> kcajyer wrote:
> > Don Gabacho wrote:
> > > kcajyer wrote:
>
> > Yes there was, monies were collected from the west "USofA" which
> > was Spanish speaking, and also collections from "Mexico" which
> > are also Spanish speaking. When you count all the contributions
> > from Galvez in Louisianna, the Spanish speakers up and down
> > the Mississippi, there was a considerable amount given go the
> > Rebel English colonies. All this is documented by the USofA.
> > gov and other sources.
>
> Kcajer, I am aware of the role the Spanish Crown, including its loyal
> subjects
Those "Spaniards" who were in the Americas including the
"USofA" were in fact people who had been in America
For centuries if not thousands of years. You see, Spain, unlike
England, recruited NOT from the Spanish peninsula, but from
the *Locals*. Those *Locals* are the ancestors of todays Mexican-
Americans, Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto-Ricans, Chicanos, Hispanos,
Indo-Hispanos, Indos, Creoles, ecetera.
> in the New World, had during the America's War of Indpendence.
>
> It was not to help the rebelling colonies form a United States rather
> than defeat British colonization of the New World so as, to eventually,
> have it all for itself.
If that were so, why is it that in 1785, George Washington, recently
"retired to the country life," wrote a friendly letter to Carlos III,
the King of Spain, thanking him for a recent gift. Washington knew that
Carlos III had been generous in his support of the birth of the
fledgling United States during the War of Independence. For at least
five years, Spain had sent more supplies and money than had been
requested to help the American Rebels succeed in what must have
appeared to be an impossible dream. Spanish men from the peninsula and
THROUGHOUT the Americas fought in the conflict
> If, and when, there were Spaniards in the New World genuinely
> contributing to a valid independence of the rebelling colonies from
> England, it would only have been in anticipation of Spain's creoles
> in Mexico to themsleves stage,
Mexico has had a couple of pure blooded Indian Presidents,
What's your fixation on "creoles".
> not a liberal war of Indpendence, which
> was America's, rather than a reactionary one as eventually was Mexico's
Mexico was not a country yet. Try and keep up please.
> to assume the same, even worse, trappings of the Spanish Crown for
> themselves---assert the same territorial claims of Spain's and
> subjugate the terrain, and whatever form of government the successful
> revolutionists may have fashioned, to their own rule, just as they are
> doing even now.
>
> The very founding of Georgia as a colony
You sure like to bluff. The truth is:
First European settlement was in present day Georgia -
San Miguel de Gualdape, Founded/settled by Spanish speakers, ( almost
100years
before Jamestown.); not to be confused with the longest *continuing*
city
in the "USofA" also founded by Spanish speakers.
> was in part to serve as a
> buffer zone against the few Spaniards in Florida.
See above.
> There was no love between Spaniards in the New World, the English or
> the English who intially rebelled as Englishmen.
You're double talking out of both sides of your mouth. The Spanish
Speakers were very friendly with the Rebelling English Colonies, they
Gave a plaque to Spanish Gov Galvez, Gov of Louisianna in gratitude
For the all the help they gave against the English.
>
> > > > > You would be hard put to prove if even the decendents of those
> > > > > Spaniards, only two generations later, even knew of what was
> > > > > transpiring in the Thirteen Colonies
> > > >
> > > > You switched from the "Pilgrims" to "Thirteen Colonies" which
> > > > was much later....
> > >
> > > The very foundation of the U.S.A. rests on those "Pilgrims" and the
> > > compacts, constitutions and evolving institutions resulting in the very
> > > Constitution of the USofA itself.
> >
> > The U.S. Constitution has no connection to the "Mayflower Compact"
> > as you stated.
>
> Yes it does Kcayher. Although the Pigrims had indentured themselves as
> servants (for six years) and were supposedly to have been governed by
> the terms of the servitude, they nonetheless agreed to their Mayflower
> Compact to govern themselves.
The people of the southwest had "governed" themselves for
Almost the entire time. They were separated by distance from
any crown presence in Spain or Mexico.
> It was the first move toward
> 'independence.'
>
> > > Absolutely nothing from any Spanish Colony which probably knew nothing
> > > of it even as it transpired.
> >
> > Ah, yes they did, Spanish speakers may have had more to
> > breaking up the English Colonies than you would like to
> > concede. Think; the Spanish speakers just about surrounded
> > the small 13 colonies,...
>
> All fifty of them in Florida? One hundred? In Florida. Perhaps a few in
> Mobile which was situated not even then on any border with the
> fledgling U.S.?
Your smoking mirrors..again. Spanish speakers in Missouri,
Mississippi,
Florida, Alabama, the gulf states.
>
> You are daft.
>
> As it is, you had been making claims for a colony of "Pilgrims1" from
> Veracruz which arrived in the S.W. of present-day U.S.A.
It is absolutely true, the other Spanish speaking authentic 1st
Pilgrims were
at the Carolinas and Georgia on the East coast "USofA".
Clipped babble babble babble
kcajyer
You mean you didn't know the USofA didn't exist in the
13 Colonies or Spanish speaking Colonies yet, sorry, didn't
know you were that dumb.
I put quotes "" around like so, "USofA", which indicates
the region of the present USofA.
Don Gabacho
kcajyer wrote:
> Don Gabacho wrote:
> > kcajyer wrote:
> > > Don Gabacho wrote:
> > > > kcajyer wrote:
> >
> > > Yes there was, monies were collected from the west "USofA" which
> > > was Spanish speaking, and also collections from "Mexico" which
> > > are also Spanish speaking. When you count all the contributions
> > > from Galvez in Louisianna, the Spanish speakers up and down
> > > the Mississippi, there was a considerable amount given go the
> > > Rebel English colonies. All this is documented by the USofA.
> > > gov and other sources.
> >
> > Kcajer, I am aware of the role the Spanish Crown, including its loyal
> > subjects
>
> Those "Spaniards" who were in the Americas including the
> "USofA" were in fact people who had been in America
> For centuries if not thousands of years. You see, Spain, unlike
> England, recruited NOT from the Spanish peninsula, but from
"Recruited"? You mean enslaved.
"...Those *Locals* are the ancestors of todays Mexican-
> Americans, Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto-Ricans, Chicanos, Hispanos,
> Indo-Hispanos, Indos, Creoles, ecetera.
So what?
> > in the New World, had during the America's War of Indpendence.
> >
> > It was not to help the rebelling colonies form a United States rather
> > than defeat British colonization of the New World so as, to eventually,
> > have it all for itself.
>
> If that were so, why is it that in 1785, George Washington, recently
> "retired to the country life," wrote a friendly letter to Carlos III,...
And not to even a King of the Mestizos!?!
He wrote the King of SPAIN CARLOS III because it was diplomatic.
That's all.
> the King of Spain, thanking him for a recent gift. Washington knew that
> Carlos III had been generous in his support of the birth of the
> fledgling United States during the War of Independence. For at least
> five years, Spain had sent more supplies and money than had been
> requested to help the American Rebels succeed in what must have
> appeared to be an impossible dream. Spanish men from the peninsula and
> THROUGHOUT the Americas fought in the conflict
>From the KING OF SPAIN!
What do you have against the French?
> > If, and when, there were Spaniards in the New World genuinely
> > contributing to a valid independence of the rebelling colonies from
> > England, it would only have been in anticipation of Spain's creoles
> > in Mexico to themsleves stage,
>
> Mexico has had a couple of pure blooded Indian Presidents,
> What's your fixation on "creoles".
How in the world can any "pure blooded Indian Presidents" one via
Revolution, Juarez, and the other via military coup, Huerta, scores of
decades later, in a new country, Mexico, have anything to do with the
motives of a King of Spain and his New Spain?
Mexico was not even a country yet.
> > not a liberal war of Indpendence, which
> > was America's, rather than a reactionary one as eventually was Mexico's
>
> Mexico was not a country yet. Try and keep up please.
That's right. You do know what "eventually" means don't you?
> > to assume the same, even worse, trappings of the Spanish Crown for
> > themselves---assert the same territorial claims of Spain's and
> > subjugate the terrain, and whatever form of government the successful
> > revolutionists may have fashioned, to their own rule, just as they are
> > doing even now.
> >
> > The very founding of Georgia as a colony
>
> You sure like to bluff. The truth is:
> First European settlement was in present day Georgia -
> San Miguel de Gualdape, Founded/settled by Spanish speakers, ( almost
> 100years
> before Jamestown.); not to be confused with the longest *continuing*
> city
> in the "USofA" also founded by Spanish speakers.
Did I say "first founding"?
Obviously I was referring to the founding of Georgia as an English
colony.
> > was in part to serve as a
> > buffer zone against the few Spaniards in Florida.
>
> See above.
The even fewer SPANISH soldiers garrisoned in Georgia were driven to
the garrison which was St. Augustine, and thus the "buffer zone."
> > There was no love between Spaniards in the New World, the English or
> > the English who intially rebelled as Englishmen.
>
> You're double talking out of both sides of your mouth. The Spanish
> Speakers were very friendly with the Rebelling English Colonies, they
> Gave a plaque to Spanish Gov Galvez, Gov of Louisianna in gratitude
> For the all the help they gave against the English.
:-) I suppose you never heard of "diplomacy" either?
Spain's colonies in the New World were autocratic and utterly despotic.
Precisely why the U.S.A. came into being though even Enlgand's
autocracy was far less despotic.
Accept the fact, there was no love between the Spaniards in the New
World and the English or even the English who revolted and became
Americans.
Prior to the American Revolution, because of the Wars of Sucession in
Europe, they were all, English, English Colonists, Spaniards, Spanish
Conquistadors, French, French Colonists and their respective Indian
allies were at eachothers throats tooth and nail as had always been the
case.
In helping the American Revolutionist, the King of Spain diminished
Englands presence in the New World. He also gained his own buffer zone
against any further British incursions into the New World via the East
Coast or even from Canada.
That's all he or his subjects cared about.
Face it.
> > > > > > You would be hard put to prove if even the decendents of those
> > > > > > Spaniards, only two generations later, even knew of what was
> > > > > > transpiring in the Thirteen Colonies
> > > > >
> > > > > You switched from the "Pilgrims" to "Thirteen Colonies" which
> > > > > was much later....
> > > >
> > > > The very foundation of the U.S.A. rests on those "Pilgrims" and the
> > > > compacts, constitutions and evolving institutions resulting in the very
> > > > Constitution of the USofA itself.
> > >
> > > The U.S. Constitution has no connection to the "Mayflower Compact"
> > > as you stated.
> >
> > Yes it does Kcayher. Although the Pigrims had indentured themselves as
> > servants (for six years) and were supposedly to have been governed by
> > the terms of the servitude, they nonetheless agreed to their Mayflower
> > Compact to govern themselves.
>
> The people of the southwest had "governed" themselves for
> Almost the entire time. They were separated by distance from
> any crown presence in Spain or Mexico.
How in the world does that have to do with the "Mayflower Compact"
being a precendent of the U.S. Constitution?
Moreover, it is exactly that isolation which not only belies their
having vistied Washington or Washington mistakenly sending a letter of
thanks to the King of SPAIN.
It also denies Mexico City's even current claims. Does it not?
If you are speaking for Hispanic-Americans, then why are you
referencing the King of Spain?
> > It was the first move toward
> > 'independence.'
> >
> > > > Absolutely nothing from any Spanish Colony which probably knew nothing
> > > > of it even as it transpired.
> > >
> > > Ah, yes they did, Spanish speakers may have had more to
> > > breaking up the English Colonies than you would like to
> > > concede. Think; the Spanish speakers just about surrounded
> > > the small 13 colonies,...
> >
> > All fifty of them in Florida? One hundred? In Florida. Perhaps a few in
> > Mobile which was situated not even then on any border with the
> > fledgling U.S.?
>
> Your smoking mirrors..again. Spanish speakers in Missouri,
> Mississippi,
> Florida, Alabama, the gulf states.
> > You are daft.
> >
> > As it is, you had been making claims for a colony of "Pilgrims1" from
> > Veracruz which arrived in the S.W. of present-day U.S.A.
>
> It is absolutely true, the other Spanish speaking authentic 1st
> Pilgrims were
> at the Carolinas and Georgia on the East coast "USofA".
I know Georgia history.
And, they were not formative to the "US of A."
Kcajyer, I have always accepted Hispanic-Americans being Americans (as
long as they keep Mexico City out).
What I don't accept is ANY American who claims they are when in
violation of the very Oath of Allegiance:...ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE...
Got it?
Don Gabacho
Don Gabacho wrote:
> kcajyer wrote:
> > What's your fixation on "creoles".
In Mexico, not New Orleans, the "Creoles" were, as opposed to the
"Peninulares", the sons and daughters of those original Spaniards but
born in the New Spain.
They formed a class in themselves in what developed to be a highly
stratified caste system.
They were especially annoyed having to take orders from Spain and being
regarded second to new viceroys, governors, bishops, priests etc.,
sent, generation after generation from Spain to rule Mexico.
When, with the occupation of Spain itself by Napolean, Spain's laws
were liberalized, particularly in regard to the absolute and brutal
repression of New Spain's indigenous, these Creoles made Mexico's
REACTIONARY WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.
They wanted, and did, mantain the status quo prior to the
LIBERALIZATION, as oppressive as it had always been and with little
let-up remains.
Does that answer your question?
kcajyer
> Don Gabacho wrote:
> > kcajyer wrote:
>
> > > What's your fixation on "creoles".
>
> In Mexico, not New Orleans, the "Creoles" were, as opposed to the
> "Peninulares", the sons and daughters of those original Spaniards but
> born in the New Spain.
That was really a long long time ago. From the 1500s upwards
the so called "Creoles" are Mexican with lots of Indian.
>
> They formed a class in themselves in what developed to be a highly
> stratified caste system.
>
> They were especially annoyed having to take orders from Spain
Do tell !
> and being
> regarded second to new viceroys, governors, bishops, priests etc.,
> sent, generation after generation from Spain to rule Mexico.
You're trying to jam 500 years of history in one short sentence,
and all over the 500 years! Things change from century to
century don't you know?
>
> When, with the occupation of Spain itself by Napolean, Spain's laws
> were liberalized, particularly in regard to the absolute and brutal
> repression of New Spain's indigenous, these Creoles made Mexico's
> REACTIONARY WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.
>
> They wanted, and did, mantain the status quo prior to the
> LIBERALIZATION, as oppressive as it had always been and with little
> let-up remains.
>
> Does that answer your question?
No, 'cause it don't fly.
Don Gabacho
"Did I say 'first founding'?"
I take that back"
I don't regard the garrisoning by male soldiers only, as in Georgia and
even St. Augustine (left to marry inidigenous or not) to simply maraud
the surroundings while guardubg the sea lanes for Spain's Treasure
Fleets: a colony.
While I'm sure those Spanish soldiers made their famous claim to the
land to the indigenous (present or not) that not only would the
inidgenous have to submit immediately to the soverignty of the King of
Spain or promptly be sent to Hell, but the if they did not also help
the Spanish soldiers to send those indigenous who would not submit to
Hell they would be sent to Hell too!
Even the Pilgrims from England did not do that.
If you wish to discuss the place of Mexican-Americans as Americans in
America, fine, but do not drag in any so-called allegiances to either
Madrid or Mexico City.
If you do, you will only convince myself and others that thier place is
not in the U.S.A. but in Mexico, and I don't think anyone, including
Mexican-Americans deserves that.
H.R.H. Qwerty
"kcajyer" <kca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don Gabacho wrote:
> > kcajyer wrote:
> >
> > > Neither "Mexico" or "USofA" the countries were in existance at the
> > > time.
> > > The 1st Pilgrims were Spanish speaking and they came to
> > > the "USofA" long before the eastern 2nd Pilgrims....
> >
> > Hotshot, if the "USofA" did not, as you say, exist at the time, how did
> > the so-called "1st Pilgrims who were Spanish-speaking come to "the
> > 'USofA' long before" anyone esle?
>
> You mean you didn't know the USofA didn't exist in the
> 13 Colonies or Spanish speaking Colonies yet, sorry, didn't
> know you were that dumb.
They may have spoken Spanish- like that's significant of anything- but
they were European, not from Mexico, Central or South America. You
appear to equate European Spanish with mestizos. They are two different
groups.
Qwerty
Don Gabacho
kcajyer wrote:
> No, 'cause it don't fly.
Because it began "so long ago"?
PAN, with its Fox and Calderon are still those reactionary 'CREOLLES'.
They are even Cristeros wanting to return Mexico to its pre-Benito
Juarez era when there was no real seperation of Catholic Church and
Mexican Government---just as Spain had made it.
Because Bush, too, has dissolved the U.S.'s tradition of seperation of
church and state with not only 'faith-based funding' but also
"LatinAmericanist" stipulated faith-based funding, Latin America's and
Mexico's (and previously not the U.S.'s) corrupt Catholic Church, and,
for that matter all sects accpeting the funds, are permitting these
Cristeros into the States.
They are not nice people---not at all. And, I'm Catholic.
In any event, it wasn't merely Mexico's War of Independence that was a
REACTIONARY one, but just about all of Latin America's Wars of
Independence.
The only Latin American War of Independence, I know of that wasn't a
Creolle reaction, was Peru's---though Peru's reactionary Creolles soon
retook Peru.
Some may say Marti's in Cuba was a liberal War of Independence.
It may certainly have been. For never having studied that one, I don't
know.
kcajyer
> In article <1152053681.6...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "kcajyer" <kca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Don Gabacho wrote:
> > > kcajyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Neither "Mexico" or "USofA" the countries were in existance at the
> > > > time.
> > > > The 1st Pilgrims were Spanish speaking and they came to
> > > > the "USofA" long before the eastern 2nd Pilgrims....
> > >
> > > Hotshot, if the "USofA" did not, as you say, exist at the time, how did
> > > the so-called "1st Pilgrims who were Spanish-speaking come to "the
> > > 'USofA' long before" anyone esle?
> >
> > You mean you didn't know the USofA didn't exist in the
> > 13 Colonies or Spanish speaking Colonies yet, sorry, didn't
> > know you were that dumb.
>
> They may have spoken Spanish- like that's significant of anything- but
> they were European, not from Mexico,
YES they were, the Spanish did not recruit from Spain (the peninsula)
they recruited from the Americas. The English however, recruited
from England, so called "Red Coats" were from England. The Spanish
soldier and their families were from the Americas, even the top brass
were born in the "USofA". The Spanish colonizers were from the
Americas, i.e. they were the ancestors of the Indo-Hispano, etcetera,
very few were from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain).
> You appear to equate European Spanish with mestizos. They are two different
> groups.
Yes a "mestizo" is someone who is Native American and white
(I don't like the term, its derogatory), BUT Spain's armies throughout
The Americas were Indo-Hispano, ect. There were very few actual
Penseluares, even the top brass were from the Americas (1492 was
the exception, came from "Spain", i.e., Coronado, Cortez, Cabeza de
Vaca, ect.
Don Gabacho
kcajyer wrote:
> H.R.H. Qwerty wrote:
> > In article <1152053681.6...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "kcajyer" <kca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don Gabacho wrote:
> > > > kcajyer wrote:
> YES they were, the Spanish did not recruit from Spain (the peninsula)
> they recruited from the Americas....
It matters not. They were recruited, or more likely impressed, to serve
under the Flag of Spain for the interests of Spain.
If you can relate any history of Mexicans in what is now the S.W. US of
A who, as you said were so isolated and government themselves for
themselves, did help the American revolutionists not under the flag of
Spain, I'd love to hear about it.
There were great Mexican heroes, for example, in U.S. history. Those
who, for example, died defending the Alamo and those who survived the
battles that ensued to be free of Mexico City.
In the same way, it would be little different of those Mexican heroes,
and Americans too, who died defending the Yucatan's secession as well.
So great the need, as it has always been, for good people everywhere
to defend themselves and neighbors from Mexico City.
Don Gabacho
Happy Independence Day!
And do let me know of that contribution.
Cheers,
don Gabacho
H.R.H. Qwerty
"kcajyer" <kca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> H.R.H. Qwerty wrote:
> > In article <1152053681.6...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "kcajyer" <kca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don Gabacho wrote:
> > > > kcajyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Neither "Mexico" or "USofA" the countries were in existance at the
> > > > > time.
> > > > > The 1st Pilgrims were Spanish speaking and they came to
> > > > > the "USofA" long before the eastern 2nd Pilgrims....
> > > >
> > > > Hotshot, if the "USofA" did not, as you say, exist at the time, how did
> > > > the so-called "1st Pilgrims who were Spanish-speaking come to "the
> > > > 'USofA' long before" anyone esle?
> > >
> > > You mean you didn't know the USofA didn't exist in the
> > > 13 Colonies or Spanish speaking Colonies yet, sorry, didn't
> > > know you were that dumb.
> >
> > They may have spoken Spanish- like that's significant of anything- but
> > they were European, not from Mexico,
>
> YES they were, the Spanish did not recruit from Spain (the peninsula)
> they recruited from the Americas. The English however, recruited
> from England, so called "Red Coats" were from England. The Spanish
> soldier and their families were from the Americas,
Man, listen to yourself- "the Spanish (Europeans) and their families
were from the Americas" ... that's nonsense. How could they be European
colonizers and explorers from the Americas?
> even the top brass
> were born in the "USofA". The Spanish colonizers were from the
> Americas,
How twisted! Again you write the Europeans "were from the Americas".
You're going nowhere with that.
> i.e. they were the ancestors of the Indo-Hispano, etcetera,
> very few were from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain).
>
> > You appear to equate European Spanish with mestizos. They are two different
> > groups.
>
> Yes a "mestizo" is someone who is Native American and white
> (I don't like the term, its derogatory), BUT Spain's armies throughout
> The Americas were Indo-Hispano, ect. There were very few actual
> Penseluares, even the top brass were from the Americas (1492 was
> the exception, came from "Spain", i.e., Coronado, Cortez, Cabeza de
> Vaca, ect.
So what? That has nothing to do with today's international borders.
Qwerty
mark_...@sbcglobal.net
ZeMascouflatte wrote:
> In article <1151882233....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,> > It is not rare to be descended from a Pilgrim. About 40 million Real
> > Americans can trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower.
>
> The only "Real Americans" are the Native Americans.
Who are themselves immigrants...
> The one this asshole's 'ancestors' exterminated.
> Just change 'spaniards' or 'spanish' in the rest of his delirium for
> "anglo-saxons" or "anglos" and you'll get a more realistic picture.
Change it to Iroquois, Lakota, Cheyenne, Ihalmiut, Aztec, Apache,
Comanch, etc...
They are descedents of previous immigrants that came across the Berring
Strait..
> funny nowadays how most anglos descend straight from the mayflower
> passengers. forget the irish escaping famines, italians eating shit at
> home, greedy english slave owners, other european leeches, without
> forgetting the deported, the prostitutes and other thieves forced to the
> colonies.
> and in their pure tradition of hypocrite bastards, now they want to
> close the door to immigration.
Heh. So did some of the previous immigrants. They didn't succeed, and
look what happened....
> 1- you take by force a land that belong to someone else (in this case
> the native americans, whose blood, by the way, still flood in the veins
> of many mexicans, which makes it more their land than yours)
Flows in mine, too, jeffe. several different varieties.
> 2- kill, enslave, round up in reserves as many as you can
> 3- bring in more white motherfuckers
> 4- when immigration shift from 'caucasian' to asian sub-continent
> (pakistan, india, etc...), start to change the rules
> 5- still let some mexicans in to do the dirty or physically demanding
> jobs (unfit for these true descendants of the mayflowers pilgrims, with
> a fucking big capital p)
> 6- when the shit hit the fan, reverse to your natural tendencies: kkk
> nostalgia, talk like the nazis did in germany 36 (talk like if you were
> real men, keep people in fear with lies and fabrications), build fences
> and watchtowers on the border, etc... etc...
> mayflower. pilgrims. wake up! this is the 21st century. nobody gives a
> shit about where you pretend to come from. they just want a job. they
> want a decent life.
Great!
Let 'em get an entry visa or go home and change their own government.
In the mean time, let's not spend money on them that is better served
for our own natives, whether Hopi or Seminole or Creek or......white,
black, yellow, green or blue.
> but hey, if you could understand that, you would not be spewing your
> trash and lies across the net by cross-posting as much as you do. which
> by the way is a sure indicator that you're a moron.
And you would be... what?
> flying booger is your nickname? well, it suits you so well, if i believe
> my "american heritage dictionary" (appropriate name in your case):
> booger - Slang
> A worthless, despicable person.
Don Gabacho
Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
> The Indians were not afraid of the Pilgrims and the Pilgrims were not
> afraid of the Indians. But the Indians were afraid of other Indian
> tribes in Massachusetts and were willing to make military alliances
> with the English settlers.
>
> The Naumkeags in particular were glad to have the English around. The
> Naumkeags felt safe with the English there to protect them.
I find it amazing that the Pilgrims and other early settlers get such a
bad rap.
The Pilgrims relations with the Indians were at worse only strained.
They were strained not because the Pilgrims came to conquer, rape their
women, enslave them, steal whatever gold, etc. as the Spaniards did
everywhere they went.
The Inidans had no problem with the Pilgrims arrival and their settling
down. They even helped them.
The relations became strained mainly because of the combination of the
role of the Chief Squanto (who amazingly spoke some English) and the
inability of the warring tribes to
regard anyone not fighting with them as, at least, an ally with those
fighting against them.
They seemed to have no conception of neutrality.
Given that the warring was also so truly savage, it would have been
absolute suicide for the Pilgrims not to assimilate, at least
security-wise, to that culture.
The same problems were encountered in Roanoke.
I wouldn't be surprised that this lack, on the part of the forever
warring tribes, of regard for neutrality was based on a suspicion that
any non-indigenous groups arriving could not be trusted.
This suspicion would, itself, have arrived from reports from the south
and those tribes who had just recently experienced the truly degenerate
mauraudings of DeSoto, Ponce de Leon and de Vaca.
Each of those Conquistadors and their armies (and not settlers) were,
at first accepted peacefully, until each of those Conquistadors would
pull such theiving and rapacious treacheries that the indigenous,
wanting to or not, were forced to not only resist them, but turn on
them with all the vengence they could, and did, muster.
If much later, the U.S. Army had not pacified the Southwestern tribes,
Mexico's northern border today would barely reach 80 miles or so north
of Mexico City; and ironically be occupied by far more Indians than
even mestizo or creolle than today.
Whatever the political entity that it would have become however, it
certainly would be an Aztlan.
Even prior to the arrival of the Spanish, the northern tribes detested
the Mexica (Aztecs).
Don Gabacho
The following:
> Whatever the political entity that it would have become however, it
> certainly would be an Aztlan.
should have read: ...it certainly would NOT be an Aztlan.
Don Gabacho
Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
"I said the social and psychological development of the Indians
prevented them from
understanding the nature of their relationship with the Europeans."
Well put.
I think, however, you should have qualified "Europeans" to those
"Europeans" who were dominating the migrations from Europe then.
Mexico still has the same problem, of how to assimilate, or not,
Mexico's indigenous into mainstream Mexicanism (brutally corrupt
two-class: patron/peon system).
The problem for Mexico's indigenous is, and has always been: How can
ANYONE be expected to understand the gibberish of Mexico's patrons or
wannabe patrons?
At least until reaching the only conclusion possible that there is
nothing to understand other than, whatever they say, it all means: fuck
you?
You've been hearing them long enough on this ng. haven't you?
kcaj...@yahoo.com
Don Gabacho wrote:
> kcajyer wrote:
> > H.R.H. Qwerty wrote:
> > > In article <1152053681.6...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "kcajyer" <kca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Don Gabacho wrote:
> > > > > kcajyer wrote:
>
> > YES they were, the Spanish did not recruit from Spain (the peninsula)
> > they recruited from the Americas....
>
> It matters not. They were recruited, or more likely impressed, to serve
> under the Flag of Spain for the interests of Spain.
>
> If you can relate any history of Mexicans in what is now the S.W. US of
> A who, as you said were so isolated and government themselves for
> themselves, did help the American revolutionists not under the flag of
> Spain, I'd love to hear about it.
"Mexico" didn't get their independence from Spain until
1821, and as you should know by now, the western and
southern parts of "USofA" was part of Mexico up to
1848.
New Mexico (includes Arizona) was considered an outpost
for the Spanish, however, the locals ran the region while under Spain
and while under Mexico, including the military. They could have
refused to help the Rebels during American Revolution, it was
"voluntary". Those
from Santa Fe and other garrisons volunteered to assist the Rebels.
Don Gabacho
kcaj...@yahoo.com wrote:
> New Mexico (includes Arizona) was considered an outpost
> for the Spanish,...
I'm familiar with there having been a small population along the
extreme southern border of present-day New Mexico---many of which were
not simply Spanish hidalgos dependent totally on indigenous labor,...
When Kearny passed through on his way to California, where the
Californianos were exclusively Spanish hidalgos living totally off the
work of missionized Indians (but still engaged in their sixteenth
revolt against Mexico City) that population you described (along the
Gila River?) offered no resistance at all. It's govenor in fact was
quite corrupt and attempted to even sell the settlement, population and
all, to Kearny.
"...however, the locals ran the region while under Spain
> and while under Mexico, including the military. They could have
> refused to help the Rebels during American Revolution,...
If, as you say, "they could have refused," who "could they have
refused"?
"... it was
> "voluntary". Those
> from Santa Fe and other garrisons volunteered to assist the Rebels.
Then these garrisoned soldiers who "could have refused" would have been
refusing their own commanders, or governor, acting on the request of
the King of Spain for the interests of Spain.
I am not asking the question to diminish the efforts, even
"contribution," that these soldiers could nevertheless have made to the
revolting colonies. As I've said before, I'd love to hear all about it
(the details).
I can think of no other group more negatively effected by this alliance
of Fox and Bush to innundate the U.S.A. with Mexico's
exported-for-profit labor, many which can acutally vote in the
elections of two nations, than the U.S.'s Mexican-Americans,
particularly those Mexican-Americans working honestly as U.S. Border
Patrol.
I look forward to the 'details'.
Allow me to caution you however, that you have been consistently
combining Spaniards with a population which ultimately became even
Mexican-Americans. You even assume the claims those Spanish bastards
made for mere "Spanish-speakers" which has been creating a great deal
of confusion with not only these dialogs but also your very perception
of just how the USofA---as a constitutionalized nation---came about.
You even go so far as lumping Spaniards, even their conquistadors, with
mestizos together as "Spanish-speakers" as if you are attempting to
foist a new, monolithic group based on a common language alone.
Keep in mind the American Revolutionists were as English-speaking as
their overlords too.
It was, as obvious as it has to be, irrelevent to the separation.
In fact, America's revolution began as Englishmen revolting against
Englishmen. The Declaration of Independence was not authored and
ratified until a year or so after the revolt began.
You also confuse what may very well have been even "voluntary"
contribution which helped allow the precedents formative to the USA,
and eventually, its Constitution, to proceed with precedents
contributed which is impossible given, whether you like it or not, the
unenlightened and persisting merchantilism and despotic autocracy of
Spain and New Spain---indeed their very persistent defense of it.
While you also collect those "details," I'd appreciate any information
at all, also, on all of what motivated the population of which you
speak to migrate at all beyond the Rio Grande and its outpost
forts---given the absolute hositility of the natives there---one of the
most dangerous places anyone could imagine.
To forge ahead for Spain and its puppets in Mexico City?
Or to, simply, get as far away from Mexico City and its governance as
possible, being percieved even then the comparitively greater and more
hopeless danger?
pomp...@hotmail.com
Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
> kcajyer wrote:
>
> > Southwest "USofA", the "Onate" families came from the Vera Cruz
> > ("Mexico") area 1500s, they are known to be the first authentic Pilgram families of
> > the "USofA"
>
> No, you stupid Mexican asshole, that's a LIE.
>
> When "Pilgrim" is capitalized, it refers to MY ancestors who arrived in
> Massachusetts on the Mayflower in 1620. My direct ancestor was Richard
> Warren and I'm related to quite a few of the survivors of that first
> terrible winter when half of the brave colonists died.
A bunch of illegal boat people showed up at Plymouth Rock, in other
words. These were the first marielistas (plymouthistas?).
Head Bustin' Hank
Don Gabacho wrote:
> Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
>
> "I said the social and psychological development of the Indians
> prevented them from
> understanding the nature of their relationship with the Europeans."
>
> Well put.
>
> I think, however, you should have qualified "Europeans" to those
> "Europeans" who were dominating the migrations from Europe then.
I thought that was implicit in my remark.
In the territories being colonized by the French, native peoples were
treated far better than they were by the Spaniards, who wanted to
convert them to Catholicism and work them to death, or by the English,
who just wanted to make Protestants of them.
The Spanish and English kept the Mexicans and the Native Americans in a
pupillary status for centuries. Gradually the native peoples are
standing up on their own two feet and looking for self realization.
Problem is, the Mexicans want to realize their higher potentials in the
wrong country, a land where different groups have been struggling for
centuries to raise themselves up from poverty.
>
> Mexico still has the same problem, of how to assimilate, or not,
> Mexico's indigenous into mainstream Mexicanism (brutally corrupt
> two-class: patron/peon system).
>
> The problem for Mexico's indigenous is, and has always been: How can
> ANYONE be expected to understand the gibberish of Mexico's patrons or
> wannabe patrons?
>
> At least until reaching the only conclusion possible that there is
> nothing to understand other than, whatever they say, it all means: fuck
> you?
>
> You've been hearing them long enough on this ng. haven't you?
Famous author James Michener described the Spanish mindset as "Viva
Yo!" Hooray for me. Me first, then you.
The Spanish character is often picaresque. Picaro was the classic rogue
of a 15th or
16th century Spanish novel and he was the archetype of the genre which
fits the mindset of modern Spanish and Mexican rebels against the
mainstream.
"Visas? We don' need no steenking visas! We're here, whatchoo gonna do
about it, greengo?"
Don Gabacho
Head Bustin' Hank wrote:
> Famous author James Michener described the Spanish mindset as "Viva
> Yo!" Hooray for me. Me first, then you.
Perhaps splitting hairs, but not quite:
In Mexico it is "Me first, last and always." And, as nothing less than
"winning" all satisfies, there is never "then you."
Though common to all Latinos, that there is no concept of fiduciary
relationship even other Latinos have more problems with Mexicans than
they do with other Latinos.
With, in Mexico, the Spanish mindset compounded by the Mexica's: it is
even "Screw you before you screw me." (Their sense of extreme, even
bufoonish pride is also a compound of Spanish and Aztec.)
It is an exceptionally cynical attitude with the end result that there
are no concepts of even reciprocity or mutual benefit at all.
As objectionable as Latino culture can be in particularly business and
governance, it is wrong to percieve the flaws of Mexican culture as, as
bad enough as it would be, merely hispanic. No Latino group I know of
stoops to the silly even brutal rationales they present to explain just
why Mexicans in particular do what they do.
In fact, it gets downright barbaric:
In Mexico right now, decapitated heads are being stacked on platforms
at government seats---not at all unlike the same skull racks visible
most everywhere at Mexico's archaeological sites.
Given Mexican central government's always singular explanation for
current events, one would have to also suppose that those slaughtered
in the past were victims of only drug gangs too.
to hell with mexico
bothers, sisters, cousins, kids, half brothers and half sisters. soon we
will all go up in a nuclear mushroom cloud. so welcome all you illegal
aliens to a very dangerous america where america is hated by the illegal
aliens and the rest of the world.
to hell with mexico
legally this time and be sponsored by american company to get back here.
adios criminal aliens!!!
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>Time for a reality check...
Indeed it is. Like the stock market, past perfromance is no guaranty
of future performance. One has to look at specific conditions and
factors, not some gross oversimplification, unless of course, that's
all you can handle.
>
>http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=39&url_article_id=16795&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2
>
>-Ramon F Herrera
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>"that first generation, like the Puritans (speaking of first-generation
>Americans), was willing to undergo severe hardship: the scorn, the
>deprivation, the unfamiliar customs..."
>
>and those rooms crowded with Mexicans, so similar to the Mayflower...
If there had been a couple of thousand Mayflowers a year.
>
>-Ramon
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>GeekBoy wrote:
>> .....but not for long.
>>
>
>
>Five hundred years, and counting.
And how is that a relevant point in today's world?
But then logical points have never been your forte.
>
>-Ramon
Homeless Capital of the U.S.
> shunned and discriminated against by people who have been here only two
> or three generations longer. Unable to communicate well in English,
> they find only menial, low-paying jobs. But they persist because, in
> most ways, life is still better here than in the country they left.
> And then, within this close-knit, insular community, something starts
> to happen to the second generation. They begin to learn English,
> speaking it openly with their friends at school. They become engrossed
> in American cartoons and sitcoms. As teenagers they discover malls,
> where they buy T-shirts with cool American sayings printed on them,
> such as "Vote for Pedro" and "Tell your boyfriend I said
> hello."
> In short, they become Americans, with all the freedoms and frustrations
> and social pathologies the rest of us enjoy. They get an education,
> make lives for themselves, raise families, become our neighbors, until
> the Rodriquezes and Habibs and Tortellinis down the street have no more
> connection to their Guatemalan or Middle Eastern or Sicilian ancestors
> than I have to my Welsh ones. Less, perhaps, because I still
> occasionally eat Welsh rare-bit.
I have seen this all happen with Italians, Armenians, Cubans, and
others who have come from foreign countries. I have not seen it happen
with most Mexicans. All I have seen from most of them is competition
for lower end jobs, unwed pregnancy, gangs, and crime. Second
generation Armenians in my city, on the other hand, are practically
indistinguishable from other Americans.
Homeless Capital of the U.S.
> Atlantic and the Mexican and CA illegal aliens crossing the Rio Grande?
> At least the ones that crossed the river, do not come to Kill Indians, like
> YOUR ancestors did in 1620.
Well, I'll explain that to you, you ignorant moron. We didn't use
someone else's schools, welfare, jobs, housing, freeways, and
everything else they made. I doubt that the early settlers killed
Indians without being attacked first, either, as is what happened in
Mexico. And even if they did, it's none of your business. They weren't
Mexican Indians. If my great-grandfather had stolen my family's
property from somebody, it wouldn't give you the right to live in it.
Why don't you rant and rave about the Spaniards and what they did to
the Mexican Indians, instead of making ancient English and U.S. history
your personal business, and thinking you're owed something for it?
Homeless Capital of the U.S.
>Spanish speakers founded cities across our country, from Florida, and the Carolinas and Virginia area, across to the southwestern area of the present USA. The also >explored the west and east coast line. The Spanish speaking world sure went to shit after the War of the Spanish Succession.
Spanish doesn't mean Mexican.
Homeless Capital of the U.S.
convince their willing fellows that jews, gypsies and other ethnic
groups were "inferior". >your discourse is exactly the same!
Isn't it a shame that because of Nazi Germany no race can be
criticized? It means we have to take in the riff-raff of the entire
world because of this. Gypsies are a sociopathic race, for the most
part. That's a fact, whether you like it or not.
kcajyer
Homeless Capital of the U.S. wrote:
> >Spanish speakers founded cities across our country, from Florida, and the Carolinas and Virginia area, across to the southwestern area of the present USA. The also >explored the west and east coast line. The Spanish speaking world sure went to shit after the War of the Spanish Succession.
>
> Spanish doesn't mean Mexican.
The Spanish recruited from the locals, including "Mexicans".
kcajyer
Homeless Capital of the U.S. wrote:
> your personal business, and thinking you're owed something for it?
'Cause I'm a USofA and need to know my history.
Hillary
--------------
Posted via http://www.immigrationnow.org