Polite Kid

Polite Kid

0 comment Monday, November 24, 2014 |

It's a little late for a Thanksgiving video, but I didn't get around to posting this when I meant to -- so here it is. Thanksgiving in old America, along with a little irony in the message, in light of what is going on in 2010.

Labels: ,


0 comment |
Here is a fun survey to tell you which candidate you should support, based on the answers you give. (H/T Daily Paul)
If you agree with us that issues matter, then take the following objectively designed short survey to see which of the leading candidates most agree with your position on a wide variety of issues - and also who least agrees with those positions - you may be surprised!''
I took the quiz, and came out with Ron Paul as the leading choice.

Labels: ,


0 comment Sunday, November 23, 2014 |
Steyn holds forth here on the absurdity of concerns about our growing population.
Lest some of his legion of fans accuse me of picking on Mark Steyn ('unfairly targeting' him, as the liberals always say when aggrieved) it is his very popularity, his icon-like status that is the problem; hee is hailed as a great sage, wit, seer, prophet, and the epitome of conservative wisdom. So he has enormous influence for many. His words are treated as gospel by many on the 'right'.
I will grant you that he is glib and witty, but his ideas are not sound, and when all is said and done, he gives the impression of shallowness when it comes to the important questions.
In this typically flippant piece, he is sneering at those who are concerned about the burgeoning American population. Last week we were treated to a week-long party by the MSM, ballyhooing the 300 millionth 'American.' The fact that we may have actually passed the 300 million milestone years ago, as Professor Virginia Abernethy says, is immaterial. The stories were all about getting us used to the idea that there is a surge in our population (who could fail to notice it? Crowded schools, crowded freeways, housing shortages, who could have guessed that our population is growing?) and that the increase is due mostly to immigration. And that 'immigration' is mostly of the illegal kind.
But no matter, say the cheerleaders, because we are becoming more 'diverse,'
However, notice that not once in Steyn's piece does he mention the word 'immigration'. Just to be sure that I was not missing it somewhere, I searched the page for the word 'immigration', and it was not found. How can Steyn, this supposed genius, miss that ponderous elephant in the national living room? One can only conclude that he is purposely avoiding looking at it.
Steyn asks instead why we are failing to celebrate the 300 million milestone. He answers his own question by saying that 'too many people who should know better' are peddling '40-year-old guff' about overpopulation. He then breezily adds,
America is the 172nd least densely populated country on Earth. If you think it's crowded here, try living in the Netherlands or Belgium, which have, respectively, 1,015 and 883 inhabitants per square mile compared with 80 folks per square mile in the United States. To be sure, somewhere such as, say, Newark, N.J., is a lot less bucolic than it was in 1798. But why is that? No doubt [Professor Dowell] Myers would say it's urban sprawl. But that's the point: you can only sprawl if you've got plenty of space.''
So: according to Steyn's logic, as long there are places that are much more densely populated than America, we can never legitimately say that America has too many people. So let's just keep packing 'em in, apparently.
He then goes on to crow about the affordability of housing in, oh, let's just say Crawford, Texas, giving us the news that
...a three-bedroom air-conditioned house in Crawford, Texas, could be yours for 30,000 bucks and, if that sounds a bit steep, a double-wide on a couple of acres would set you back about $6,000.''
Just to show how atypical Steyn's example is, this recent article says
The median price of a single-family home fell to $219,800 last month, a drop of 2.5 percent from the price in September 2005.''
According to City-Data.com the median house value in Crawford, at least in 2000, was $51,300.
So yes, it is possible to find a house in Crawford for the low price Steyn cites, but that is a low figure. And Crawford, Texas, is not typical; living expenses there are below the average.
Steyn, however, is not interested in making a real argument, but rather sneering at and dismissing those who think half a billion might be an undesirable population figure for America.
No one seriously thinks 400 or 500 million Americans will lead to mass starvation. By "unsustainable," they mean that we might encroach ever so slightly onto the West Nile mosquito's traditional breeding grounds in northern Maine. Which is sad if you think this or that insect is more important than the developed world's most critically endangered species: people. If you have a more scrupulous care for language, you'll note that population-wise it's low birth rates that are "unsustainable": Spain, Germany, Italy and most other European peoples literally cannot sustain themselves -- which is why, in one of the fastest demographic transformations in human history, their continent is becoming Muslim.'
Steyn offers no reasoning whatsoever as to why lower populations for Europe would render Europeans unable to sustain themselves. What, precisely, does Steyn think happened in past eras when the population was reduced drastically, with widespread plagues and pandemics, or warfare? In Europe, during the 5 years at the height of the Plague, 25 million people died. By some estimates this was half the population of Europe.
During WWII, Germany lost 7.5 million people, for example.
Whenever the population was reduced by some event like war or disease, there was social upheaval and dislocation, but somehow the people did sustain themselves. The countries did not vanish off the map, and the people did not become extinct. So I suspect when Steyn asserts that Europe cannot sustain itself without more population growth, what he actually means is that their present system, the welfare state which is entrenched across Europe, needs constant growth in order to keep up the pyramid scheme. More young workers are needed to take care of the older, retiring workers. Maybe the welfare state cannot continue without continuing, infinite growth, but can human societies count on perpetual growth? Come on, people; we live on a finite planet, with finite resources. And those 'conservatives' who jeer at such a plain, commonsense statement, are merely reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to what they have disdained as 'liberalism', 'tree-hugging', etc. It's more than unfortunate that conservatives have ceded the environmental issue to the left. If we conservatives are not concerned with conserving our resources and environment, as well as our quality of life, what good are we? It is not enviro-weenie-ism to want population growth to be within reasonable limits. And liberals are not wrong on everything; even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. Conservatism had better be about something more than just mindless automatic gainsaying of whatever the liberals/leftists say.
And here's another thought: maybe our country is big enough and wide-open enough to comfortably hold half a billion or more. But the fact is, the growth which we are experiencing now is happening too fast. What kind of 'conservative' applauds uncontrolled, precipitate growth, growth and change which are disruptive, disordered, and most of all, unnatural? If our population grows by natural means, that would be by increased family size; our own citizens reproducing at a more normal rate, rather than the depressed rate we have seen since the 1960s. If our population was growing by that method, we would be planning for it, anticipating the need for more schools, housing, infrastructure, jobs, etc. As it is, too much of our growth is by invasion, with even our government in the dark as to how many people are surreptitiously entering our country each and every day. The present growth in population is wildly uncontrolled, and the results are yet unknown. We can only extrapolate from present trends that there will be more of the same social dislocation and chaos that we are seeing: ethnic strife, increasing crime, resurgence of contagious diseases and pests (like bedbugs) Not to mention stresses on infrastructure, the need for more housing, prisons, schools, and the ever-increasing costs of social programs demanded by the immigrants, both legal and illegal.
Steyn refuses to deal with this aspect of the population question. He flatly asserts that an ever-growing population is an imperative, and that to meet this requirement, Europe is forced to admit millions of hostile Mohammedans. With Steyn and others like him, the choice is extinction or mass immigration of hostile third-worlders.
And there are many who seem to see the situation this way. I crossed swords in a debate once with a neocon blowhard who actually stated that 'We could bring the whole population of Mexico here and not be crowded; we could absorb all of Mexico, no problem!'
Whenever these blustering neocons want to discredit any concerns about population, they exhume the corpse of Thomas Malthus and give it a ritual drubbing. All they have to do, they believe, is sneer 'neo-Malthusians' and throw out a few insults against liberals and 'enviroweenies' and they have won, so they think. Unfortunately, their tactics often do work; the debate is then shut down, with their opponent labeled a 'liberal' 'envirowacko' or whatever.
But Malthus cannot be so easily dismissed. What he said was basic common sense: just as nature tends to be overprofuse in reproduction (as with plants and animals) so with human beings: if family size increases beyond the ability to feed and provide for the children, there will be poverty and hunger. We can see this in the Third World. Malthus's theories, so ridiculed by some 'conservatives', explain exactly why we are seeing mass immigration from the Third World: they continue to reproduce beyond the ability to feed and care for their offspring, and as a result, we in the West are being asked to carry them on our backs. At first, it was only a matter of humanitarian efforts to feed, clothe, and bring the Christian gospel to the starving people overseas, but now they are being dropped on our doorstep, like abandoned foundlings. And now we are responsible for them.
(This is reminiscent of the habits of the cowbird; but that's another story)
Malthus's theories have not been proven wrong by Steyn or anyone else. No, the world has not ended with a whimper -- yet, but maybe we have only been given a reprieve. The fact is, overpopulation is a problem in the rest of the world; it's only we Westerners who are the exception. The liberal Malthusians were wrong in this particular: they directed their 'zero population growth' efforts only at the developed (Western) countries, the countries best fit to take care of their offspring. However these liberal dogooders did little to discourage overreproduction in the backward Third World, and now their overflow is becoming our problem.
Given a choice between welcoming in a flood of hostile, incompatible people, who will change the West into something approaching the benighted countries they left behind, and being forced to adapt to a smaller population in our country, I would enthusiastically choose the latter. I have faith that our Western ingenuity, inventiveness, and can-do spirit could find a way to cope with smaller numbers. The Japanese are managing to keep their country functioning with lower birth rates, without welcoming in hordes of hostile strangers; they prize their culture and their people enough to shun that choice, and choose instead to use automation to compensate for a declining work force. To listen to Steyn and the other open borders neocons, we have no choice. We have to leave our doors open and see our country transformed and dismantled, or else perish helplessly.
I don't accept that false dilemma.

Labels: ,


0 comment |
The most influential US Conservatives
My readers will know that I am always somewhat fascinated and sometimes bemused by these kinds of lists: the 'top 50' or 'top '100' in whatever category.
The London Daily Telegraph presents its list of the 'most influential US conservatives' which I've linked above. Suffice it to say that, as usual, the apellation 'conservative' is applied very broadly here. Those listed in this article are numbers 81-100, with the list being continued in future articles, just like counting down the top 100 on the hit parade, #1 being saved for last.
I won't list all of them; I will just mention a few of those on this list: Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Henry Kissinger, Peggy Noonan -- and Ron Paul. Oh, and I forgot Larry Craig.
Make of it what you will. The comments following are rather telling as to the state of conservatism. The most frequently-heard howl of protest is that Rush Limbaugh was not included; obviously the commenters don't understand that this is only a partial list. For all we know, Limbaugh could be #1, although likely President Bush will hold that spot.
Any guesses as to who the top five will be?
I still say we need a new label because the word 'conservative' has ceased to have any meaning, because it includes so many people who are almost polar opposites in their thinking. The Republican Party can make itself into a Big Tent, and include everybody under the sun, but conservatism cannot be whatever we choose it to mean, per Humpty Dumpty.

Labels: , , ,


0 comment |
Here's an article which asserts that without organized crime (which largely got started through the late-19th century wave of mass immigration), America would be a dull old place. So we ought to be grateful that the immigrant wave brought us such great cultural benefits as jazz, smutty movies (beginning with the 'nickelodeon), the gay movement, Las Vegas, and interracial clubs which made our country a 'better place.'
Lew Rockwell.com occasionally has articles which are of some worth. I don't agree with libertarians on many things, but I can see eye-to-eye with those who oppose and sound the alarm about a too-powerful central government, and about the decline in our civil liberties.
But this article which was apparently posted originally at HuffPo is one which illustrates the other side of libertarianism, which is nothing more than the adolescent hedonist argument framed in academic or pseudo-intellectual terms. The first libertarian I ever knew in real life was simply a druggie-hedonist who was still rebelling against his wealthy, conservative father and 'whatever else you got.'
Libertarians, being ideologues, are thus brothers to the liberals, who believe in fairy-tale constructs, utopian castles in the air, mythical lands where everyone is free from any external (or internal) restraint, and everybody is happy and harmonious.
The implication behind this particular article is that the original founding population of this country were a crowd of fuddy-duddies who did not want anybody to have any fun, and thus made this country a joyless, repressed place where (horrors!) there were vice laws and social mores that -- imagine! -- discouraged and occasionally punished antisocial and/or self-destructive acts.
So the false dichotomy is set up: which would you rather live in: a repressed, puritanical place where all pleasure is outlawed, or a wide-open lawless place in which libertinism is given free rein?
Most younger people would unhesitatingly choose the latter, the country with no restraints. Sadly, now even the older generations, who usually uphold the traditional, have fallen for the same influences. The fact is, though, that as I said, this is a false choice; it is not an either/or choice. No country existing now is perfectly libertarian (I doubt that such a place could exist) nor is any country as strict and oppressive as to curtail all vice and self-indulgent, self-destructive behavior. Such a place would, of course, be a police state -- unless the majority of the populace were devout people who exercised a great deal of self-restraint, and did not need to be coerced into behaving well. Even then, though, people are subject to the same temptations as any other human being, and it is this inherent weakeness that the libertines and those who profit from vice of whatever sort exploit.
At least the article verifies what I have generally believed about the unhappy effects of the promiscuous immigration policies of the late 19th and early 20th century, as well as the post-1965 wave of immigration. If you import people who have differing mores and ethics and behavioral standards, there will be a cultural clash and a disruption in morality as people are offered conflicting messages from different sources.
For years the media have been promoting sleaze and corruption, and the article not only notes the influence of certain cultures and ethnicities, but praises them for doing it, and calls it the 'betterment' of our country.
Pretty shameless.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment |
The United States has been called the 'melting pot of the world.' The peoples who make up its population have come from all nations. They have proved without question that peoples of all colors, religions, and national origins can live together peacefully and happily. The American melting pot has been a success, but not a perfect success. In the United States there has been a certain amount of friction between white people and Negroes [sic], and among Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.''
Before I continue, a disclaimer: the politically incorrect language in the last sentence above is a verbatim quote from the source, and not my own choice of words.The paragraph is from a half-century old World Book encyclopedia entry on ''Intercultural Education.''
I read it while browsing in this set of 1956-vintage encyclopedias recently, and was reminded of it when I read this
story from the UK Daily Mail, announcing a multicultural curriculum, which will encompass all subjects in schools:
Children will be taught race relations and multiculturalism with every subject they study -from Spanish to science - under controversial changes to the school curriculum announced by the Government.
In music and art, they could have to learn Indian and Chinese songs and instruments, and West African drumming .''
I used to believe that this kind of news story was unique to our own degenerate times, but reading the old 1956 encyclopedia, I found that the PC agenda has been around for decades, albeit under slightly different names, and with a less heavy-handed approach.
The British school plan is not that different from the approach in many schools in our own country, where multiculturalism and 'inclusion' are injected into every subject. Example: multicultural math.
More from the old encyclopedia:
The growth of large cities has brought troubles about housing . The growth of industry and business has caused more intense competition between groups. The Communist Party teaches its members who live in democracies to stir up race hatred in an attempt to make democracy appear ineffective.''
[emphasis mine]
Note: the article writers were correct in pointing out the role of the Communist Party in dividing people along racial and ethnic lines; divide and conquer, divide and rule, is a precept that has been used forever. Marx believed and taught that blacks would be part of the 'vanguard' of the revolution in our country and in Africa. When our home-grown leftists saw that our 'proletariat' was not revolutionary, as the working class became too comfortable and middle-class, the Left began to look to blacks as the revolutionary force in America, and worked at stirring up strife towards this end. Add that to the natural group frictions, and you have today's balkanized America, but further complicated by many, many new ethnic groups.
Educators in the United States have recognized the growth of friction between people of different groups. They have realized that the best way to stop friction is to educate children in the ways of tolerance, brotherhood, and interdependence. So they have introduced training in intercultural relations into the schools.
What Is Taught.
The Declaration of Independence gave the basic rule of intercultural relations. It declared ''All men are created free and equal.'' [sic] The United States Constitution gave equal rights and freedom to all citizens.
It is the purpose of intercultural education to fix in the minds of school children a belief in the American creed of freedom and equality. Anothere objective of intercultural education is to show how this creed must be practiced in daily life. Students are taught that "people are people", and that no man should be denied any rights because he is a Negro [sic], a Jew, an Italian, a Catholic, or a Japanese.
Teaching Methods
Some schools which were the first to teach intercultural education taught the subject as a separate course. The system was not very successful. Teachers soon found that much better results could be gained by including the subject in all courses on which it had bearing. One of the main aims of intercultural education is to show pupils how much their own group owes to others. This can be shown in many subjects. The study of English can show how the language has come from French, German, and Latin.
[...]Art and music teachers can point out that there have been masters in all nations and of all races and religions -- Da Vinci of Italy, Tschaikovsky of Russia, Beethoven of Germany, Chopin of Poland, Marian Anderson the Negro [sic], Mendelssohn the Jew, Rembrandt of the Netherlands, and El Greco, a Greek who lived in Spain. [Wow, a twofer with El Greco.]
Science teachers can show what inventions we have received from the Chinese, such as the making of paper and explosives. They can tell of the wonders perfomed by the Negro [sic] chemistry genius, George Washington Carver.
[...]All teachers can find frequent occasions to explode popular misbeliefs about various groups by presenting the facts.''
Yes, I can recognize much of this agenda in what I was taught in school back in the 1950s, although perhaps the agenda was less zealously pushed in the South, where the True Believers in the educational field were not as numerous back then.
Intercultural education goes beyond the classroom. On the playground, children of the various races and creeds can be taught to play together and show respect for each other.
In 1939 the public schools of Springfield, Mass., started such a program of intercultural education. The program was worked into all subjects and all activities of the school. Some Negro [sic] teachers were hired to teach classes of both white and Negro [sic] children. The sponsors of the plan have reported considerable success.
Outside The Schools.
Intercultural education is not limited entirely to the schools. It has been made part of the programs of churches, young people's clubs, and other organizations. One church in a New England town invited a group of Negro children from New York City to visit the town and live with white families. Later some of the New England children visited their New York friends in their Harlem homes.
Newspapers and magazines have done much to aid intercultural education.
[...] During World War II, most newspapers were quick to tell of the patriotism and loyalty of Japanese-American members of the armed forces. National Brotherhood Week is celebrated each year in the United states. Newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures give special publicity to questions of group tolerance at this time.''
And the media have become even more gung-ho for political correctness in the intervening decades. But this encyclopedia article does show us that some of these ideas have been around in American society since at least the 1930s, when the Springfield, MA schools instituted the 'intercultural education' agenda. I truly think that leftists have been insinuating themselves into crucial positions in the media, education, and politics for many decades. That was their announced intention and plan, and yet some people still doubt that such is the case.
So much of the leftist agenda has been absorbed into our culture that it has become second nature to many people. Many people don't even realize the source of many of the pervasive ideas in our culture, like the obsession with egalitarianism which the intercultural education proponents cited so often in the excerpts above. Of course it sounds good and noble to say that 'all men are created equal', which Thomas Jefferson wrote, but did he intend for that phrase to be interpreted as justification for multiculturalism and a complete leveling of society? A thorough reading of his written works shows that he did not believe in the idea of erasing distinctions between people, and he did not propose that all cultures were equal, which is the basis of multiculturalism. So much of the leftist agenda is only a twisting and perverting of sound ideas into something else. 'All men are created equal' has been twisted to support Communism and various more benign-sounding leftist theories, as well as multiculturalism and open borders. 'All men are created equal' is also being used to justify things like 'No Child Left Behind', affirmative action, and racial quotas. After all, if all men are created equal, why should they not all have equal outcomes in life?
It all sounds benign and well-intentioned when we read the excerpts from the encyclopedia; who could object to phrases like 'people are people'? Who could object to people treating each other fairly and civilly? Who would favor unkindness or unfairness? The problem is not with that simple intention, but the lengths to which it has been taken, some 51 years later. Now, we not only have schools teaching children about the talented people of various nations or races, with credit given where due, but we have reached the point of absurdity, as in this:
The teachings are sheer fantasy, unsubstantiated by any credible evidence: ancient Egyptians mastered flight with gliders, which they used for both recreation and travel. They invented electric batteries and mastered electroplating, discovered the principles of quantum mechanics and anticipated Darwin's theories of evolution. Furthermore, all Egyptians were black, and their abundance of the dark skin pigment, melanin, not only made them more humane and superior to lighter-skinned people in body and mind but also provided such paranormal powers as ESP and psychokinesis.
Incredible as it may seem, these fallacies are being included in public school multicultural courses in a growing number of U.S. cities and espoused in black-studies departments on some college campuses.''
Afrocentric theory is the basis of such nonsense, but to dispute it is to open oneself to the inevitable charges of 'racism.' I actually had a black professor in college in the 70s who insisted that Beethoven was black. 'Just look at his hair in the pictures', she said, by way of 'proving' her assertion. Not only was Beethoven black, but so were Socrates, Pushkin, (he apparently did have some African descent) and other luminaries. Now we have people claiming that Edward 'the Black Prince' of England, was actually black.
This school web page says coyly,
His nickname probably was derived from the color of his armor, but nobody knows for sure.''
Right. So we leave the door open to the possibility that Edward was actually black, as in African.
If we ask skeptically why this fact was not known in the past, I am sure we would find somebody who would say 'they kept it quiet because of racism', just as my professor said about the cover-up of Beethoven's race.
Such is the arrant nonsense that we have opened the door to, in the name of making everybody feel good about themselves. If the goal of bringing about 'tolerance and brotherhood' and nowadays, boosting that sacred self-esteem, is noble enough, then that makes it permissible to lie and concoct fantasies about the past. If there aren't enough accomplishments by every race and nation, why not make them up? After all, it's in a good cause. But the truth is, achievement, on an individual level or on a national and racial level, is not equally distributed. Yet the truth is not acceptable, because it doesn't support the egalitarian agenda. So let's discard the truth and make up some flattering lies and fairy tales, like Egyptians flying around among the pyramids, and a black prince in England in the 14th century.
I suppose, being generous, we might excuse this as silliness for the sake of putting a good face on things; white lies of a sort. But then there is the darker side of this kind of revisionism for the sake of leveling: the depiction of Europeans and people of European descent as being arch-villains, committers of 'genocide' against the noble savages; this kind of thing is the stock-in-trade of the Aztlan crowd, with their stories of Columbus killing 30 million people, and of their mythical 'Aztlan' being stolen from them. This kind of belief system, irrational as it is, is a danger to us, because it may motivate those who would usurp our country.
In the UK, the sinister elites there seem intent on convincing people that Britain has always been multiracial and multicultural. Is it a coincidence that there has been a spate of stories like this one attempting to establish that there are long-standing African genes among the English? Notice how the article uses scare quotes around the word 'indigenous', as much as to question whether the English people are the 'real' indigenous people. It's all motivated by the multicultural agenda, it seems. Even science is being used for political ends.
The result of all this deceptively benign-sounding 'intercultural education', after decades, is a decidedly less benevolent one. The majority populations of all Western countries are demoralized after generations of being told that they and their ancestors are guilty, and intrinsically 'racist', and that they have no right to take pride in who they are, no right to consider their own interests as a group, while every other group and ethnicity has that right. 'Intercultural education', whether it was intended to do so or not, has had the effect of softening up the West for invasion and submission. The seeming capitulation of much of Europe to Islam seems mostly attributable to this pernicious doctrine of 'tolerance' inculcated in us for decades. When you have one group of people who are heavily indoctrinated to be all-accepting, open, tolerant, and self-blaming, while their competitors are aggressive, hyperconfident, and without restraint, the outcome is sadly predictable.
I see promising signs that people are now aware of some of these things, and awareness is the first step to shaking off the chains of our decades of leftist conditioning.
And to all thinking people with school-age children, home-schooling is an option to be considered.

Labels: ,


0 comment Saturday, November 22, 2014 |
Each year on this day, I remember an incident in Texas history called the Goliad Massacre, also the 'Palm Sunday Massacre' because Palm Sunday fell that year, in 1836, on 27 March. I will reproduce part of my last year's entry on this event, so for those of you who were here last year, I hope you will forgive the repetition. But to me this is something we should remember, especially when it seems the Mexican war never really ended, but simply passed into another, more insidious phase.
But on this day, March 27th, in 1836, 330 Texans of some 357 who were prisoners of the Mexicans were slaughtered at the town called Goliad in south Texas.
Here is a link to some survivor accounts of the massacre, with the excerpt below from the account of Dillard Cooper.
"Our detachment was marched out in double file, each prisoner being guarded by two soldiers, until within about half a mile southwest of the fort, we arrived at a brush fence, built by the Mexicans. We were then placed in single file, and were half way between the guard and the fence, eight feet each way. We were then halted, when the commanding officer came up to the head of the line, and asked if there were any of us who understood Spanish. By this time, there began to dawn upon the minds of us, the truth, that we were to be butchered, and that, I suppose, was the reason that none answered. He then ordered us to turn our backs to the guards. When the order was given not one moved, and then the officer, stepping up to the man at, the head of the column, took him by the shoulders and turned him around.
By this time, despair had seized upon our poor boys, and several of them cried out for mercy. I remember one, a young man, who had been noted for his piety, but who had afterwards become somewhat demoralized by bad company, falling on his knees, crying aloud to God for mercy, and forgiveness. Others, attempted to plead with their inhuman captors, but their pleadings were in vain, for on their faces no gleam of piety was seen for the defenseless men who stood before them. On my right hand, stood Wilson Simpson, and on my left, Robert Fenner. In the midst of the panic of terror which seized our men, and while some of them were rending the air with their cries of agonized despair, Fenner called out to them, saying: "Don't take on so, boys; if we have to die, let's die like brave men.''
That last part of the account never fails to move me to tears, while at the same time it makes me proud.
I had one kinsman that I know of among those massacred; one of those 'boys' who died like brave men. He was part of Captain Winn's Company, which was the 1st Regiment, Texas Volunteers. His name is among the lists on this page.
According to other sources
The dead were then stripped, and their naked bodies thrown into piles. A few brush were placed over them, and an attempt made to burn them up, but with such poor success, that their hands and feet, and much of their flesh, were left a prey to dogs and vultures! Texas has erected no monument to perpetuate the memory of these heroic victims of a cruel barbarism ; yet they have a memorial in the hearts of their countrymen more durable than brass or marble.''
There is now a memorial to the heroic dead at the site of the massacre.
The story of the Alamo, and the tragic end of the defenders there, is well-known to most Americans, but Goliad is probably not a familiar name to anybody except Texans. We learned about it in school. Texas History was a part of the seventh grade curriculum when I was growing up; it still is, although I hear it has been completely politically corrected.
At this time, I am not inclined to give in to the pressure to forget the bitter history of this era; the Mexicans have not given up their claim on the Southwest, and increasingly it looks as though they intend to claim the whole continent. But I have not forgotten the Alamo and Goliad.
To the Mexicans, the war has merely shifted to another front, and is fought by other means, like unarmed invasion and demographic takeover and the use of our liberal courts and laws against the citizens of this country, But make no mistake; the Mexican 'reconquistas' see this country as theirs by right. It's only we who have seemingly surrendered, or who think we are at peace with Mexico.
Goliad, for all the tragedy of the loss of 330 men, was a precursor to a major victory for the Texans at San Jacinto a few weeks later, on April 21, 1836. 'Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!' were the cries heard at San Jacinto. Gen. Sam Houston, on the eve of that battle, wrote these words: "To the People of Texas: We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish´┐ŻWe must act now or abandon all hope."
Are we of this generation 'nerved for the contest' as Sam Houston and his men were back then? Do we recognize our perilous situation, as they did?
Thus I ended my blog entry last year. This year, sadly, finds me somewhat more discouraged as it seems obvious that too many of us don't recognize our perilous situation, and we seem even weaker as a country and as a people than we were in 2007. But Sam Houston's words, 'We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish...We must act now or abandon all hope." Houston and his men did act, and they prevailed. Now we have to carry on that determination.

Labels: , , ,