0 comment Saturday, November 22, 2014 | admin
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�We 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.
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�We 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: American History, American Sovereignty, Mexico, Texas History
0 comment Friday, November 7, 2014 | admin
There has been longstanding speculation among many people, who don't understand George W. Bush's fondness for Mexico and illegal immigration, on just why he holds his rather obsessive views.
So recently, over at VDare, I read with interest the Patrick Cleburne piece on George W. Bush's memories of growing up in Midland, Texas, and how his experiences gave him an understanding of and appreciation for Hispanics.
At the time, I viewed the President's account of life in Midland with considerable skepticism; it simply didn't jibe with my experience of West Texas. Now, I have never lived in Midland, but I have lived in West Texas, and the President and I are near the same age, so we both grew up in the same era.
So it was interesting to read this letter from a reader, posted at VDare, which challenged the President's account of life in Midland during the 50s and 60s:
A Native Of Midland Wonders About Dubya's Midland Memories
From: A Native Of Midland�And America
I was born in Midland, and lived there 3 different times�leaving for the last time at the age of 12 in 1966. My parents later went back for a 4th time.
My father was a petroleum engineer who was sent back to Midland during booms.
I simply don�t remember ever running into Hispanic people in Midland during the times I lived there. I do remember the Mexican migrants coming through to pick cotton when I lived in Winters, Texas (a few years before going back to Midland for the last time in 1963). I think that they were part of the Bracero program. They were pretty pitiful and the Anglo families did what they could to make sure that when the migrant kids came to school�they had enough to eat. (This was a little before that free lunch program came about)
[...]
Quite frankly, I don�t see how Bush, Jr. got much exposure to Hispanics in Midland. I don�t think there were enough of them to account for any significant interactions. Ditto for Houston. Oil took my daddy there during my High School days. I don�t remember knowing any in the overwhelmingly white suburbs of Houston.
My daddy was out on oil wells for 30 days at a time. From what I remember, the roughnecks were all white boys�the Scots-Irish version (which is why I doubt that part in the story which talks about Hispanics being in the Bush oil fields back then.)
[...]
I think that you are on to something about the Mexican oligarchs being the primary influence of Bush�s affinity for Hispanics�because it sure wasn�t that he went to elementary school with them. They weren�t in the white elementary schools in Midland�and I seriously doubt they were in that fancy school he went to in Houston.''
The anonymous reader's account tends to coincide with my own recollections of West Texas at that time.
I lived in a town in West Texas for a relatively brief period. Like the letter-writer, my father's work took us to West Texas. There were some Mexican kids in the schools I attended there, but they were, as this letter writer says, from migrant families who came and went. There were parallel societies, as I've said elsewhere on this blog: the Hispanic kids I went to school with tended to prefer the company of their own nationality. They were clannish. There was not really open hostility, but not much interaction on a social basis.
My own childhood experiences with Hispanics did not result in an infatuation with them and their culture, as the President's apparently did, but neither did my experience cause me to hate Hispanics. They were part of life in Texas, but they interacted rather minimally with the rest of us. My present feelings of ire are based on the fact that we are now being inundated and taken advantage of. And it is not easy to maintain friendly feelings or even neutral feelings towards people who display contempt for me and mine, and for this country, as many Hispanics now apparently feel emboldened to do.
It's always puzzling to note the different accounts of the same time and place as given by different people. I suppose no two individuals will have identical experiences, but sometimes you wonder how people can give such different accounts. Can it be that the President has rosy recollections of Hispanic people because of his family's live-in housekeeper/nanny? I suppose having a live-in domestic servant would give one greater familiarity with Hispanics than the experiences of people without live-in domestics. Most people in the Texas I grew up in did not have domestic servants, especially live-in ones.
I once read a quote from George W. Bush (which I can't find a link to) in which he said he was not a Southerner, but a Southwesterner. That is interesting; I don't know many people from Texas who would disavow their Southern identity. Some people claim that Texas is part of the 'Southwest' and I suppose it could be -- if you consider the Mississippi the dividing line between east and west. I don't. And historically and culturally, Texas is part of the South. Texas was part of the Confederate States of America, and the culture of Texas, the dialect, the folkways, the food, the Bible Belt influence -- are all Southern. Texas is part of Dixie. Most of us with roots in the state have Confederate ancestors, and a tradition of honoring the symbols of the Confederacy. Texas is Southern. Or at least it was until the demographics started to shift during recent decades. If George W. Bush has his way, Texas will again be an outpost of Mexico.
I've said before that the Bush family are not truly Texan. I think I shocked one of my readers when I called the family carpetbaggers, and I'm far from the first person to use that term. The Bushes have no historic ties to Texas or the South, and seemingly no allegiance thereto. The Bush family was not in Texas during the historic wars with Mexico; they have no family history of fallen kin at the Alamo or Goliad as some of us do. It's easy for New England transplants with no roots in Texas to have romanticized pictures of Mexican culture.
So Bush considers himself a 'Southwesterner' instead of a Southerner. What is the Southwest? Does it comprise California, Arizona, New Mexico? Utah? Nevada? All those states have a very different culture and outlook and history than Texas. The Southwestern states, to my mind, have much more historic Hispanic influence than Texas.
There is a revisionist tendency these days to imply that Texas has always been a half-Hispanic state, in terms of population and culture and cuisine. There is a popular and Politically Correct tendency to speak as if the Hispanic population of Texas is very intertwined with the 'Anglo'. People speak of 'Tex-Mex' music and cuisine, but these are fairly recent developments. There is also a popular misconception that Texas was once a full-fledged part of Mexico, with a flourishing Mexican population when the American settlers arrived there to colonize. This is false; the Mexican population of Texas was very small when the Americans arrived; the state was mostly populated by Indian tribes who had proved resistant to Mexican subjugation, and the American colonists were the only ones who succeeded in establishing lasting settlements there. So there was not a large Mexican population when my ancestors settled there. Even in my childhood, there was a much smaller Hispanic population in Texas than there is today, by far. Yet I suspect that many people, even in Texas, are beginning to accept the revisionist version of Texas history, and they believe that Mexicans have always been a big part of the population in Texas, if not the majority.
Maybe George W. Bush has glowing memories of Hispanic people based on his family's servants, and maybe he has convinced himself that he had many Hispanic classmates. Or maybe he is just telling nice PC fairytales in order to further his Hispanicizing agenda.
It was heartening, however, to read in Cleburne's article the reactions of actual residents of today's Midland, who in general don't agree with the President's love-in with Mexico, and his fondness for illegal immigrants.
So recently, over at VDare, I read with interest the Patrick Cleburne piece on George W. Bush's memories of growing up in Midland, Texas, and how his experiences gave him an understanding of and appreciation for Hispanics.
At the time, I viewed the President's account of life in Midland with considerable skepticism; it simply didn't jibe with my experience of West Texas. Now, I have never lived in Midland, but I have lived in West Texas, and the President and I are near the same age, so we both grew up in the same era.
So it was interesting to read this letter from a reader, posted at VDare, which challenged the President's account of life in Midland during the 50s and 60s:
A Native Of Midland Wonders About Dubya's Midland Memories
From: A Native Of Midland�And America
I was born in Midland, and lived there 3 different times�leaving for the last time at the age of 12 in 1966. My parents later went back for a 4th time.
My father was a petroleum engineer who was sent back to Midland during booms.
I simply don�t remember ever running into Hispanic people in Midland during the times I lived there. I do remember the Mexican migrants coming through to pick cotton when I lived in Winters, Texas (a few years before going back to Midland for the last time in 1963). I think that they were part of the Bracero program. They were pretty pitiful and the Anglo families did what they could to make sure that when the migrant kids came to school�they had enough to eat. (This was a little before that free lunch program came about)
[...]
Quite frankly, I don�t see how Bush, Jr. got much exposure to Hispanics in Midland. I don�t think there were enough of them to account for any significant interactions. Ditto for Houston. Oil took my daddy there during my High School days. I don�t remember knowing any in the overwhelmingly white suburbs of Houston.
My daddy was out on oil wells for 30 days at a time. From what I remember, the roughnecks were all white boys�the Scots-Irish version (which is why I doubt that part in the story which talks about Hispanics being in the Bush oil fields back then.)
[...]
I think that you are on to something about the Mexican oligarchs being the primary influence of Bush�s affinity for Hispanics�because it sure wasn�t that he went to elementary school with them. They weren�t in the white elementary schools in Midland�and I seriously doubt they were in that fancy school he went to in Houston.''
The anonymous reader's account tends to coincide with my own recollections of West Texas at that time.
I lived in a town in West Texas for a relatively brief period. Like the letter-writer, my father's work took us to West Texas. There were some Mexican kids in the schools I attended there, but they were, as this letter writer says, from migrant families who came and went. There were parallel societies, as I've said elsewhere on this blog: the Hispanic kids I went to school with tended to prefer the company of their own nationality. They were clannish. There was not really open hostility, but not much interaction on a social basis.
My own childhood experiences with Hispanics did not result in an infatuation with them and their culture, as the President's apparently did, but neither did my experience cause me to hate Hispanics. They were part of life in Texas, but they interacted rather minimally with the rest of us. My present feelings of ire are based on the fact that we are now being inundated and taken advantage of. And it is not easy to maintain friendly feelings or even neutral feelings towards people who display contempt for me and mine, and for this country, as many Hispanics now apparently feel emboldened to do.
It's always puzzling to note the different accounts of the same time and place as given by different people. I suppose no two individuals will have identical experiences, but sometimes you wonder how people can give such different accounts. Can it be that the President has rosy recollections of Hispanic people because of his family's live-in housekeeper/nanny? I suppose having a live-in domestic servant would give one greater familiarity with Hispanics than the experiences of people without live-in domestics. Most people in the Texas I grew up in did not have domestic servants, especially live-in ones.
I once read a quote from George W. Bush (which I can't find a link to) in which he said he was not a Southerner, but a Southwesterner. That is interesting; I don't know many people from Texas who would disavow their Southern identity. Some people claim that Texas is part of the 'Southwest' and I suppose it could be -- if you consider the Mississippi the dividing line between east and west. I don't. And historically and culturally, Texas is part of the South. Texas was part of the Confederate States of America, and the culture of Texas, the dialect, the folkways, the food, the Bible Belt influence -- are all Southern. Texas is part of Dixie. Most of us with roots in the state have Confederate ancestors, and a tradition of honoring the symbols of the Confederacy. Texas is Southern. Or at least it was until the demographics started to shift during recent decades. If George W. Bush has his way, Texas will again be an outpost of Mexico.
I've said before that the Bush family are not truly Texan. I think I shocked one of my readers when I called the family carpetbaggers, and I'm far from the first person to use that term. The Bushes have no historic ties to Texas or the South, and seemingly no allegiance thereto. The Bush family was not in Texas during the historic wars with Mexico; they have no family history of fallen kin at the Alamo or Goliad as some of us do. It's easy for New England transplants with no roots in Texas to have romanticized pictures of Mexican culture.
So Bush considers himself a 'Southwesterner' instead of a Southerner. What is the Southwest? Does it comprise California, Arizona, New Mexico? Utah? Nevada? All those states have a very different culture and outlook and history than Texas. The Southwestern states, to my mind, have much more historic Hispanic influence than Texas.
There is a revisionist tendency these days to imply that Texas has always been a half-Hispanic state, in terms of population and culture and cuisine. There is a popular and Politically Correct tendency to speak as if the Hispanic population of Texas is very intertwined with the 'Anglo'. People speak of 'Tex-Mex' music and cuisine, but these are fairly recent developments. There is also a popular misconception that Texas was once a full-fledged part of Mexico, with a flourishing Mexican population when the American settlers arrived there to colonize. This is false; the Mexican population of Texas was very small when the Americans arrived; the state was mostly populated by Indian tribes who had proved resistant to Mexican subjugation, and the American colonists were the only ones who succeeded in establishing lasting settlements there. So there was not a large Mexican population when my ancestors settled there. Even in my childhood, there was a much smaller Hispanic population in Texas than there is today, by far. Yet I suspect that many people, even in Texas, are beginning to accept the revisionist version of Texas history, and they believe that Mexicans have always been a big part of the population in Texas, if not the majority.
Maybe George W. Bush has glowing memories of Hispanic people based on his family's servants, and maybe he has convinced himself that he had many Hispanic classmates. Or maybe he is just telling nice PC fairytales in order to further his Hispanicizing agenda.
It was heartening, however, to read in Cleburne's article the reactions of actual residents of today's Midland, who in general don't agree with the President's love-in with Mexico, and his fondness for illegal immigrants.
Labels: Illegal Immigration, Mexico, Revisionist History, Texas History
0 comment Monday, October 20, 2014 | admin
This article, by Frank Zoretich, appeared in the Albuquerque Tribune nearly seven years ago, in 2000.It's a lengthy piece, reporting on the ideas of Charles Truxillo, a 'Professor of Chicano Studies' who said that the
Southwest shall secede from U.S.
Charles Truxillo, a professor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico, suggests "República del Norte" would be a good name for a new, sovereign Hispanic nation he foresees straddling the current border between the United States and Mexico.
The Republic of the North -- he predicts its creation as "an inevitability" -- would include all of the present U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, plus southern Colorado."
Stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, it would also include the northern tier of current Mexican states: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas.
Its capital would probably be Los Angeles. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being "by any means necessary."
But in a recent interview at a coffee shop near the UNM campus, Truxillo said it was "unlikely" civil war would attend its birth.
Instead, he said, the creation of the Republic of the North will be accomplished by political process, by the "electoral pressure" of the future majority Hispanic population throughout the region rather than by violence.
"Not within the next 20 years but within 80 years," he said. "I may not live to see the Hispanic homeland, but by the end of the century my students' kids will live in it, sovereign and free."
Truxillo said it's his task to help develop a "cadre of intellectuals" to begin thinking about the practicalities of how the Republic of the North can become a reality.''
A cadre of intellectuals? Please; I have seen your Chicano 'intellectuals' and they have not a shred of logic or wisdom or knowledge in a whole crowd of them. They are irrational, childish, and lacking in respect for truth and facts.
In the past, of course, wars have erupted when states seceded from either parent nation -- including the U.S. Civil War to keep the South in the Union and, in Truxillo's quick description, "the Alamo and all that" when Texas declared itself independent of Mexico.
Truxillo said the U.S. Civil War settled the question of secession militarily but not in a legal sense. States do have the right to secede, he maintained, if -- as was untrue in the 1860s -- the rest of the country is willing to let them go.''
Let me interject here: Truxillo may be an affirmative action professor of some bogus discipline called 'Chicano studies' but he is ignorant here as regards state's rights. But let's go on:
How realistic is it? That's one of the key issues," Truxillo said. "It's not unfeasible as a premise -- and a realistic possibility when you consider global geopolitical trends. It could happen with the support of the U.S. government."
Yes, and obviously our rogue U.S. government is providing its full support to you and your co-ethnics.
He listed a number of international developments that he said would have seemed "far-fetched in the 1950s," including the breakup of the Soviet Union, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the apparently imminent creation of an independent West Bank Palestinian state agreed to by Israel, and ballot-box separatist movements aimed at achieving a Quebec independent of Canada.
The "tide of history" is moving the U.S.-Mexico border region toward political autonomy, Truxillo said.''
Well, I can't gainsay him there; it looks as though, tragically for us, he was right.
Truxillo goes on to relate how he 'learned' the 'truth' about the Southwest being stolen from his Hispanic ancestors by evil Anglos. He learned this from a radical 'Chicano' who, in 1967, participated in a takeover of a courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, N.M. He claims that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which Mexico surrendered claim to the Southwest, was not legitimate, and that the United States had not honored the terms of that treaty.
None of the rights of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were fulfilled," he told Tijerina. "None of the obligations were upheld. You told us this was our country, our patria, and that we should fight for our rights, that all colonized and exploited peoples should rise up in struggle for independence.
"We will one day be a majority and reclaim our birthright by any means necessary -- and we shouldn't shy away."
[emphasis mine]
Who told Truxillo that he and his people (and why aren't Americans your people, Charles? You're American-born, probably of American-born parents) should 'fight for their rights'? Or that 'all colonized and exploited peoples should rise up in struggle for independence'? Which of our founders said that? To take that Marxist nonsense as being part of American tradition is to pervert American tradition, which is what I said was happening: the enemies of the West, including unfortunately our homegrown enemies, pervert the meaning of our Constitution and our founding philosophies, just as they steal and corrupt the teachings of Christianity.
But notice his ominous words about Mexicans reclaiming 'their birthright' by any means necessary.
Even now, despite all the visible evidence that this takeover effort is well underway, there are the usual suspects, who try to dismiss the reconquista as a 'myth' and a conspiracy theory. And then there are the pestilential bleeding-heart types who say 'I know lots of very nice Hispanic people; it's only a few who are the extremists.' Heaven save us from the nice, stupid people in our country.
Truxillo says that some American-born Hispanics will resist the reconquista idea, but he predicted they would have a kind of identity crisis as the momentum for Hispanic independence grows. This is something I have predicted, too: Americanized Hispanics may seem to be on our side but many, especially the young, will find they are ambivalent and conflicted, and may become re-Hispanicized and ethnically militant, as young Moslems in Europe have done. Blood is thicker than 'national ideals.' Ethnicity trumps the 'proposition nation'. Truxillo's words:
There will be the negative reaction, the tortured response of someone who thinks, 'Give me a break. I just want to go to Wal-Mart.' But the idea will seep into their consciousness, and cause an internal crisis, a pain of conscience, an internal dialogue as they ask themselves: 'Who am I in this system?'"
Along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border "there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections," Truxillo said. "Southwest Chicanos and Norteño Mexicanos are becoming one people again."
Read the rest of the article. The Anglo-American professors who are consulted by the reporter have their heads stuck in the sand, although to be fair, this was in 2000, before the illegal invasion was as far advanced as it is now. I wonder if these professors were interviewed today, would they have changed their tune?
A La Raza activist, Pena, is interviewed, and he says that Mexicans were, at that time, not organized enough to mount a successful independence movement. He notes, tellingly, that a 'Chicano' separatist movement couldn't have succeeded because they lacked the firepower. Now, of course, they have several tens of millions of footsoldiers within our borders, some of them heavily armed gang members. And even more importantly, they are accomplishing their objective without having to use the firepower; they are doing it the easy way, by demographics and manipulation of the native Anglo population -- and with the willing collaboration of the government.
If Truxillo and his reconquista buddies retake this country, it won't have been accomplished honorably or legitimately; it will have been done by sneaky, underhanded means, by stealth, deception, and manipulation. Again, our basic chivalric values are being used against us by sneaks and opportunists.
This link quotes Truxillo, in another source, saying
'A new age of nationalism is sweeping the planet. Norteños are like Palestinians, Quebecois and Sri Lanka Tamils.''
However, I don't believe that, once having achieved a solid majority and control of the institutions in the Southwest that this new 'Aztlan' would actually secede or declare autonomy. No way. They will simply remain attached to the U.S. Why be independent and become another loser country like Mexico if you can cling to Uncle Sam and his moneybags? And further, they are smart enough to realize that they can control the entire country if they simply keep doing what they are doing now. They would be extremely foolish to stop with the Southwest. I am sure these grasping reconquistadores won't settle for less than the whole country. They've already decided that as 'indigenous' people, this whole continent is rightfully theirs.
By any means necessary, as he said.
Obviously Truxillo and his fellow reconquistadores have counted us out already. He is counting on our nationalism not asserting itself in opposition to his. Maybe this 'new age of nationalism' he is talking about may hold some surprises for him and his invader friends.
Labels: Const, Demographics, Illegal Immigration, Mexico, Nationalism, Revisionist History
0 comment Monday, September 15, 2014 | admin
Certainly the open borders liberals don't, and neither does Reuters writer Bernd Debusmann:
Around globe, walls spring up to divide neighbors
TIJUANA, Mexico, April 30 (Reuters) - What do Tijuana, Baghdad and Jerusalem have in common?
They all have walls that divide neighbors, cause controversy and form part of an array of physical barriers around the world that dwarf the late, unlamented Iron Curtain.
There are walls, fences, trenches and berms. Some are reinforced by motion detectors, heat-sensing cameras, X-ray systems, night-vision equipment, helicopters, drones and blimps. Some are still under construction, some in the planning stage.
When completed, the barriers will run thousands of miles (kilometres), in places as far apart as Mexico and India, Afghanistan and Spain, Morocco and Thailand, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
They are meant to keep job-hungry immigrants, terrorists and smugglers out, thwart invaders, and keep antagonists apart.''Their proponents cite the proverb "Good fences make good neighbors" but critics say they are a paradoxical result of globalization in so far as goods and capital can move freely but migrants cannot.'
"Good fences make good neighbors" is also a line from the same Robert Frost poem, 'The Mending Wall' which I quoted at the beginning. Actually in it, Frost seems to be arguing against the necessity of walls, likening his wall-building neighbor to a 'stone-savage.'
If I could put a notion in his head;
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall...
So, Bernd Debusmann, Reuters reporter, might consider who we are "walling in or walling out." Actually, Bernd, we are not walling out too many people, it seems, given that about 3 million illegals skulk across our erstwhile 'borders' every year. The figure may be even higher; it's just a rough guesstimate based on the numbers apprehended. And according to this article, one in two Mexicans polled has family members on our side of the 'border.' So our much-criticized wall, what there is of it, does pitifully little towards keeping intruders out. Bernd: what, exactly, is the problem? That the entire population of Mexico hasn't yet made it north to where the goodies are yet?
So what we are walling out is not much; they are coming in by the thousands day and night, 365 days a year. If you are going to weep crocodile tears over a wall, or write scathing words about how cruel the wall is, at least pick a wall that actually accomplishes the purpose. Our wall is mostly nonexistent, except for Tijuana and that little stretch along the California border.
Bernd Debusmann, Reuters reporter, like his innumerable liberal media comrades-in-arms, is either so obtuse or so disingenuous as to be unable to tell the difference between a wall to keep people in a police-state regime like East Germany once was, and a wall to keep invaders out, as the Wall of Hadrian used to be, or the Great Wall of China.
Likening the small stretch of wall on our southern 'border' to the Iron Curtain is just laughable. Is Debusmann too young to remember the days of the Iron Curtain? Or does he think that Mexico is trying to keep her citizens in, as the East Germans were? If anything, the Mexican government is pushing certain of their citizens, possibly their unwanted citizens, to cross our border and send back as much as they can loot on our side.
Are these liberal hacks, who write cookie-cutter articles on immigration every day, really that dense? I suppose it's possible; in order to embrace liberalism/leftism, intelligence is an actual hindrance. So these 'reporters' who report stories to order, and write them according to a template, probably are true believers. There is scarcely an honest word written or spoken about the immigration and borders issue in the mainstream media.
I wonder if Bernd Debusmann has a lock on his front door? Or does he helpfully leave it open in case there is a burglar, possibly a destitute illegal alien, who wants to let himself in? I wonder if the open-borders bleeding-hearts are consistent enough to remove the fences from their property and the locks from their doors and windows? After all, there are homeless people out there who might want to stake a claim to their homes, and people 'looking for a better life' who might want all those possessions they have so selfishly acquired.
As to 'what we are walling in or walling out', I know what I would like to wall out: the chaos, corruption, crime, and failure that characterize the nations to the South of us. I would like to wall out those who do not respect borders; those who believe, ignorantly, that they have a claim to this nation and its bounties; that their ancestors, whoever they might have been, were the rightful owners of America. I want to wall out those who want to change my homeland into something to their liking, without the least regard to the existing citizens of this country. I want to wall out those who would be a burden financially to an already overburdened country. I want to wall out diseases which have been so carefully and successfully eradicated from this country. I want to wall out ruthless savage gangs like MS-13.
I want to wall out those who would overpopulate my country until there is little open space or usable farmland, and those who treat the environment like a dumping ground, as we have seen the invading Mexicans do.
But so far, since a sizeable percentage of Mexico's population is in my country, and many of them brazenly walking the streets of my little town, thousands of miles from their homeland, Bernd Debusmann need not lose sleep; few Mexicans are being cruelly kept out of their rightful hunting grounds in America.
If we don't have the right to wall out, or simply close the door to anybody of our choosing, then this country is no longer our country. In fact, it's been often said that a country without borders (including walls, if need be) is not a country.
And just as I have the right, in my home, to open my door to only those I choose to welcome, and to eject anybody who arrives uninvited, sneaks in, or who refuses to leave at my request, we as the rightful people of this country have the same right. People enter or stay only at our pleasure; they have no inherent right to enter or to stay, against our will.
There are some who are now bluntly asserting that human beings should have free entry to any country they choose at any time; this is as radical and revolutionary an idea as can be. What next? Yet a lot of people seem unruffled by this idea that everyone has a 'universal human right to emigration.' This is an extreme leftist idea, and to the undiscerning, it may sound humane and compassionate, but the world would be turned upside down if that idea were to be put into practice. We are already seeing a slow-motion Camp of the Saints scenario, but we would be overwhelmed if this foolishness were declared law, or even if the odious amnesty proposals become law.
The trouble is, I am certain that this 'human right to emigrate anywhere' would really only be granted to the 'have-nots' of the world, and people who wanted to migrate away from the multicultural chaos would be denied any such right. It is meant only for the world's poor and 'diverse' populations, the people who depend on the fruits of others for their survival.
Maybe Robert Frost did not believe that 'good fences make good neighbors', and it's certain that Bernd Debusmann does not believe it, but nonetheless it is true. Perhaps we don't need fences to keep the law-abiding, decent neighbors on their side of the divide, but in a fallen world, with desperate or unscrupulous neighbors, a fence or a wall is an absolute necessity.
Around globe, walls spring up to divide neighbors
TIJUANA, Mexico, April 30 (Reuters) - What do Tijuana, Baghdad and Jerusalem have in common?
They all have walls that divide neighbors, cause controversy and form part of an array of physical barriers around the world that dwarf the late, unlamented Iron Curtain.
There are walls, fences, trenches and berms. Some are reinforced by motion detectors, heat-sensing cameras, X-ray systems, night-vision equipment, helicopters, drones and blimps. Some are still under construction, some in the planning stage.
When completed, the barriers will run thousands of miles (kilometres), in places as far apart as Mexico and India, Afghanistan and Spain, Morocco and Thailand, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
They are meant to keep job-hungry immigrants, terrorists and smugglers out, thwart invaders, and keep antagonists apart.''Their proponents cite the proverb "Good fences make good neighbors" but critics say they are a paradoxical result of globalization in so far as goods and capital can move freely but migrants cannot.'
"Good fences make good neighbors" is also a line from the same Robert Frost poem, 'The Mending Wall' which I quoted at the beginning. Actually in it, Frost seems to be arguing against the necessity of walls, likening his wall-building neighbor to a 'stone-savage.'
If I could put a notion in his head;
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall...
So, Bernd Debusmann, Reuters reporter, might consider who we are "walling in or walling out." Actually, Bernd, we are not walling out too many people, it seems, given that about 3 million illegals skulk across our erstwhile 'borders' every year. The figure may be even higher; it's just a rough guesstimate based on the numbers apprehended. And according to this article, one in two Mexicans polled has family members on our side of the 'border.' So our much-criticized wall, what there is of it, does pitifully little towards keeping intruders out. Bernd: what, exactly, is the problem? That the entire population of Mexico hasn't yet made it north to where the goodies are yet?
So what we are walling out is not much; they are coming in by the thousands day and night, 365 days a year. If you are going to weep crocodile tears over a wall, or write scathing words about how cruel the wall is, at least pick a wall that actually accomplishes the purpose. Our wall is mostly nonexistent, except for Tijuana and that little stretch along the California border.
Bernd Debusmann, Reuters reporter, like his innumerable liberal media comrades-in-arms, is either so obtuse or so disingenuous as to be unable to tell the difference between a wall to keep people in a police-state regime like East Germany once was, and a wall to keep invaders out, as the Wall of Hadrian used to be, or the Great Wall of China.
Likening the small stretch of wall on our southern 'border' to the Iron Curtain is just laughable. Is Debusmann too young to remember the days of the Iron Curtain? Or does he think that Mexico is trying to keep her citizens in, as the East Germans were? If anything, the Mexican government is pushing certain of their citizens, possibly their unwanted citizens, to cross our border and send back as much as they can loot on our side.
Are these liberal hacks, who write cookie-cutter articles on immigration every day, really that dense? I suppose it's possible; in order to embrace liberalism/leftism, intelligence is an actual hindrance. So these 'reporters' who report stories to order, and write them according to a template, probably are true believers. There is scarcely an honest word written or spoken about the immigration and borders issue in the mainstream media.
I wonder if Bernd Debusmann has a lock on his front door? Or does he helpfully leave it open in case there is a burglar, possibly a destitute illegal alien, who wants to let himself in? I wonder if the open-borders bleeding-hearts are consistent enough to remove the fences from their property and the locks from their doors and windows? After all, there are homeless people out there who might want to stake a claim to their homes, and people 'looking for a better life' who might want all those possessions they have so selfishly acquired.
As to 'what we are walling in or walling out', I know what I would like to wall out: the chaos, corruption, crime, and failure that characterize the nations to the South of us. I would like to wall out those who do not respect borders; those who believe, ignorantly, that they have a claim to this nation and its bounties; that their ancestors, whoever they might have been, were the rightful owners of America. I want to wall out those who want to change my homeland into something to their liking, without the least regard to the existing citizens of this country. I want to wall out those who would be a burden financially to an already overburdened country. I want to wall out diseases which have been so carefully and successfully eradicated from this country. I want to wall out ruthless savage gangs like MS-13.
I want to wall out those who would overpopulate my country until there is little open space or usable farmland, and those who treat the environment like a dumping ground, as we have seen the invading Mexicans do.
But so far, since a sizeable percentage of Mexico's population is in my country, and many of them brazenly walking the streets of my little town, thousands of miles from their homeland, Bernd Debusmann need not lose sleep; few Mexicans are being cruelly kept out of their rightful hunting grounds in America.
If we don't have the right to wall out, or simply close the door to anybody of our choosing, then this country is no longer our country. In fact, it's been often said that a country without borders (including walls, if need be) is not a country.
And just as I have the right, in my home, to open my door to only those I choose to welcome, and to eject anybody who arrives uninvited, sneaks in, or who refuses to leave at my request, we as the rightful people of this country have the same right. People enter or stay only at our pleasure; they have no inherent right to enter or to stay, against our will.
There are some who are now bluntly asserting that human beings should have free entry to any country they choose at any time; this is as radical and revolutionary an idea as can be. What next? Yet a lot of people seem unruffled by this idea that everyone has a 'universal human right to emigration.' This is an extreme leftist idea, and to the undiscerning, it may sound humane and compassionate, but the world would be turned upside down if that idea were to be put into practice. We are already seeing a slow-motion Camp of the Saints scenario, but we would be overwhelmed if this foolishness were declared law, or even if the odious amnesty proposals become law.
The trouble is, I am certain that this 'human right to emigrate anywhere' would really only be granted to the 'have-nots' of the world, and people who wanted to migrate away from the multicultural chaos would be denied any such right. It is meant only for the world's poor and 'diverse' populations, the people who depend on the fruits of others for their survival.
Maybe Robert Frost did not believe that 'good fences make good neighbors', and it's certain that Bernd Debusmann does not believe it, but nonetheless it is true. Perhaps we don't need fences to keep the law-abiding, decent neighbors on their side of the divide, but in a fallen world, with desperate or unscrupulous neighbors, a fence or a wall is an absolute necessity.
Labels: Immigration, Media, Mexico, Open Borders
0 comment Thursday, May 29, 2014 | admin
There has been a story floating around about a huge weapons cache which was recently seized on the Texas-Mexico border. However, none of the Texas newspapers I checked seemed to have anything on it, not surprisingly. One of the few sources which mention it is Stratfor.com, but a subscription is required for access.
This blog, The Mex Files, has some details.
Pictures at this blog.
This is just another story that should be getting a lot of notice, but which is scarcely mentioned at all. How and why is this the case? Is there some kind of policy to ignore or play down these stories? Or is it just that it doesn't fit the MSM's liberal agenda on the border issue, which focuses on the plight of the Poor Immigrant?
Is this a case of more drug cartel violence, or is there something more to it than that? Absent any real coverage of this story, we can only speculate.
This blog, The Mex Files, has some details.
Pictures at this blog.
This is just another story that should be getting a lot of notice, but which is scarcely mentioned at all. How and why is this the case? Is there some kind of policy to ignore or play down these stories? Or is it just that it doesn't fit the MSM's liberal agenda on the border issue, which focuses on the plight of the Poor Immigrant?
Is this a case of more drug cartel violence, or is there something more to it than that? Absent any real coverage of this story, we can only speculate.
Labels: Borders, Drug Cartels, Mexico, Open Borders