0 comment Monday, May 5, 2014 | admin
I've written a lot about the effects of the present wave of mass immigration, legal and illegal, on our country and our culture and our future. I've written a little about the history of immigration to this country, and the many misconceptions about it which have been successfully implanted by the left-wing media and academia. For instance, the idea that ''we are all descendants of immigrants'' or ''this is a nation of immigrants'' and ''this country has always welcomed immigrants from everywhere.'' Then we have the more malevolent myths, such as the widespread idea that the old-stock Anglo-Americans were mean-spirited ''nativists'' who held unfounded prejudices toward certain immigrant groups, or perhaps all immigrant groups, irrespective of origin.
As someone whose ties are to the South, I have particular concern for the effects of mass, unchecked, Third World immigration on the South. Why do I worry more about the South? Well, it's not only because that is where my primary sympathies and affections lie, but because the South has, heretofore, been somewhat shielded from the disruptions of large numbers of immigrants. The South has maintained a much more stable demographic than many parts of this country, with the majority of inhabitants, at least up until the latter part of the 20th century, being descendants of old-stock colonists. The South was primarily settled by people of British Isles descent, with a scattering of Germans and French Huguenots. Of course since the 1600s there have been people of African origin in the South, but the White populace has remained mostly a people of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic origin. There are exceptions like the Cajuns of Louisiana, but then they were brought into the United States with the Louisiana Purchase; for the most part they did not come to the U.S. as immigrants, and although they keep a considerable part of their culture, they are also very American and very much a part of the South.
Even as late as the 1960s and 70s, most of the South remained as it had always been, but that era saw the beginning of an influx of people from the Northern states, who had come to find work in various industries: aerospace, the oil industry, and various other occupations. It seemed that by the late 70s and 80s, every other person you met in parts of Texas was from the North. Although many of these people were happy additions to the South, some of them brought very liberal ideas with them, and slowly the effect on local politics and culture began to be noticeable in some areas with a lot of Yankee newcomers. I suppose I had better add the usual disclaimer here: I don't ''hate'' Yankees; my own Mother was one.
But even the influx of many Northerners, with their different culture (and yes, there are two different cultures, Northern and Southron) and different ideas, was benign compared to the recent wave of immigrants from the Third World.
Did you all know that Nashville, Tennessee was the home of the largest Kurdish community outside Iraq? To most Americans, the name Nashville calls up associations with the Grand Ole Opry, and 'Music Row.' But now, I am told by relatives, the cab drivers there are mostly African immigrants, and the city is now one more multicultural bastion.
The South has a rich history, and a distinctive culture and way of life since the beginning. Will this survive mass immigration?
One other aspect of immigration has been fateful for the South: the role of immigration in the War Between the States. This is something we don't often hear discussed. But I have long heard it said by Southerners who cherish our way of life that in effect, mass immigration provided the manpower and 'cannon fodder' that enabled the North to win the war.
In an effort to find more information on the role of immigrants in the War Between the States, I did internet searches, and found page after page of results. But oddly there was not one webpage among those search results that offered the South's point of view, or a pro-Southron side of the story. I have heard that the search engines are now cleansing out the politically incorrect web pages and blogs; it seems to be happening.
This web page tell us that ''only'' a third of the Union troops were non-native born:
''Thus, only under one-third (1/3) of all troops were non-natives distributed approximately as follows:
German c. 200,000
Irish c. 150,000
British c. 150,000
Canadians c. 50,000
others c. 75,000 (mostly European)
Comparing the percentage of native and immigrant troops to the total population of the North (c. 21,000,000) reveals that the per capita percentage total enlistments from both groups is approximately equal. Thus, we can assert that the foreign troops did their fair share of service in their adopted land for the cause of Union.
[...]
The contribution of the foreign born immigrant troops to the cause of the Union was decisive in securing victory over the Confederacy. The loyalty and patriotism of these new Americans, with a few exceptions, never flagged. Their efforts helped insure a united country and a secure future for the nation.''[Emphasis mine]
The article is very pro-diversity and pro-immigration:
''America is a land of great diversity, and nothing is more diverse than the myriad of origins of its people. We are an immigrant nation whose ancestors sought opportunity in a new homeland. As if to demonstrate their belief in an eventual united people and hope for the future, they wholeheartedly supported the Union cause in the Civil War. This support was paid in both blood and sweat, for these recent arrivals fought and died in every battle and engagement of the war, and they who stayed at home provided the labor to clothe, feed and supply the armies. By their deeds did these newly arrived prove their devotion to the cause of Union. Without their considerable contributions, it is very doubtful whether the Union could have been preserved.''
Looking at this history in a very frank way, it appears that mass immigration was used as a weapon against the South.
For the writer, it is a given that preserving the Union was worth any amount of bloodshed, and any amount of suffering on the part of the South. And holy diversity, of course, must be part of this grand Union. Actually this is the party line expressed in just about all of the articles and web pages I perused on this subject.
This writer says that population, industrial capacity, and railroads were decisive in the Union's prevailing. He also believes that the North had 'better leadership', but I daresay most Southron people would disagree with that opinion.
Still, the author does mention the role played by mass immigration in the outcome of the war.
The outcome of that war has been devastating to the South, with the effects continuing to this very day. In the past, I've said that we are now experiencing yet one more phase of Reconstruction. I know others have said similar things about our situation. However, most people today, North and South, could not tell you what 'Reconstruction' was, nor do they have any idea how it parallels what is happening today.
The destruction of our history, both North and South, has had a very deleterious effect on us; the dumbing-down of our schools and media have had the desired effect of making us a people without a memory.
We can't unscramble the egg; we can't undo what was done a century and a half ago, although it looks as though history may be about to repeat.
I will leave you with a couple of quotes from the Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut, a Southron lady who lived through the War Between the States. Of the North, she said:
''How contradictory is their attitude toward us. To keep the despised and iniquitous South within their borders, as part of their country, they are willing to enlist millions of men at home and abroad, and to spend billions, and we know they do not love fighting per se, nor spending money.''
And of the surrender and aftermath, she said:
Dr. Boykin and John Witherspoon were talking of a nation in mourning, of blood poured out like rain on the battle-fields-for what? "Never let me hear that the blood of the brave has been shed in vain! No; it sends a cry down through all time."
As someone whose ties are to the South, I have particular concern for the effects of mass, unchecked, Third World immigration on the South. Why do I worry more about the South? Well, it's not only because that is where my primary sympathies and affections lie, but because the South has, heretofore, been somewhat shielded from the disruptions of large numbers of immigrants. The South has maintained a much more stable demographic than many parts of this country, with the majority of inhabitants, at least up until the latter part of the 20th century, being descendants of old-stock colonists. The South was primarily settled by people of British Isles descent, with a scattering of Germans and French Huguenots. Of course since the 1600s there have been people of African origin in the South, but the White populace has remained mostly a people of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic origin. There are exceptions like the Cajuns of Louisiana, but then they were brought into the United States with the Louisiana Purchase; for the most part they did not come to the U.S. as immigrants, and although they keep a considerable part of their culture, they are also very American and very much a part of the South.
Even as late as the 1960s and 70s, most of the South remained as it had always been, but that era saw the beginning of an influx of people from the Northern states, who had come to find work in various industries: aerospace, the oil industry, and various other occupations. It seemed that by the late 70s and 80s, every other person you met in parts of Texas was from the North. Although many of these people were happy additions to the South, some of them brought very liberal ideas with them, and slowly the effect on local politics and culture began to be noticeable in some areas with a lot of Yankee newcomers. I suppose I had better add the usual disclaimer here: I don't ''hate'' Yankees; my own Mother was one.
But even the influx of many Northerners, with their different culture (and yes, there are two different cultures, Northern and Southron) and different ideas, was benign compared to the recent wave of immigrants from the Third World.
Did you all know that Nashville, Tennessee was the home of the largest Kurdish community outside Iraq? To most Americans, the name Nashville calls up associations with the Grand Ole Opry, and 'Music Row.' But now, I am told by relatives, the cab drivers there are mostly African immigrants, and the city is now one more multicultural bastion.
The South has a rich history, and a distinctive culture and way of life since the beginning. Will this survive mass immigration?
One other aspect of immigration has been fateful for the South: the role of immigration in the War Between the States. This is something we don't often hear discussed. But I have long heard it said by Southerners who cherish our way of life that in effect, mass immigration provided the manpower and 'cannon fodder' that enabled the North to win the war.
In an effort to find more information on the role of immigrants in the War Between the States, I did internet searches, and found page after page of results. But oddly there was not one webpage among those search results that offered the South's point of view, or a pro-Southron side of the story. I have heard that the search engines are now cleansing out the politically incorrect web pages and blogs; it seems to be happening.
This web page tell us that ''only'' a third of the Union troops were non-native born:
''Thus, only under one-third (1/3) of all troops were non-natives distributed approximately as follows:
German c. 200,000
Irish c. 150,000
British c. 150,000
Canadians c. 50,000
others c. 75,000 (mostly European)
Comparing the percentage of native and immigrant troops to the total population of the North (c. 21,000,000) reveals that the per capita percentage total enlistments from both groups is approximately equal. Thus, we can assert that the foreign troops did their fair share of service in their adopted land for the cause of Union.
[...]
The contribution of the foreign born immigrant troops to the cause of the Union was decisive in securing victory over the Confederacy. The loyalty and patriotism of these new Americans, with a few exceptions, never flagged. Their efforts helped insure a united country and a secure future for the nation.''[Emphasis mine]
The article is very pro-diversity and pro-immigration:
''America is a land of great diversity, and nothing is more diverse than the myriad of origins of its people. We are an immigrant nation whose ancestors sought opportunity in a new homeland. As if to demonstrate their belief in an eventual united people and hope for the future, they wholeheartedly supported the Union cause in the Civil War. This support was paid in both blood and sweat, for these recent arrivals fought and died in every battle and engagement of the war, and they who stayed at home provided the labor to clothe, feed and supply the armies. By their deeds did these newly arrived prove their devotion to the cause of Union. Without their considerable contributions, it is very doubtful whether the Union could have been preserved.''
Looking at this history in a very frank way, it appears that mass immigration was used as a weapon against the South.
For the writer, it is a given that preserving the Union was worth any amount of bloodshed, and any amount of suffering on the part of the South. And holy diversity, of course, must be part of this grand Union. Actually this is the party line expressed in just about all of the articles and web pages I perused on this subject.
This writer says that population, industrial capacity, and railroads were decisive in the Union's prevailing. He also believes that the North had 'better leadership', but I daresay most Southron people would disagree with that opinion.
Still, the author does mention the role played by mass immigration in the outcome of the war.
The outcome of that war has been devastating to the South, with the effects continuing to this very day. In the past, I've said that we are now experiencing yet one more phase of Reconstruction. I know others have said similar things about our situation. However, most people today, North and South, could not tell you what 'Reconstruction' was, nor do they have any idea how it parallels what is happening today.
The destruction of our history, both North and South, has had a very deleterious effect on us; the dumbing-down of our schools and media have had the desired effect of making us a people without a memory.
We can't unscramble the egg; we can't undo what was done a century and a half ago, although it looks as though history may be about to repeat.
I will leave you with a couple of quotes from the Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut, a Southron lady who lived through the War Between the States. Of the North, she said:
''How contradictory is their attitude toward us. To keep the despised and iniquitous South within their borders, as part of their country, they are willing to enlist millions of men at home and abroad, and to spend billions, and we know they do not love fighting per se, nor spending money.''
And of the surrender and aftermath, she said:
Dr. Boykin and John Witherspoon were talking of a nation in mourning, of blood poured out like rain on the battle-fields-for what? "Never let me hear that the blood of the brave has been shed in vain! No; it sends a cry down through all time."
Labels: American History, Immigration, South, War Between The States