CNN's LOU DOBBS: FAIR-MINDED DEBATE OR HATE-MONGERING?
From an Inter Presss Service news story: "Over the past several months -- perhaps as a response to a series of massive pro-immigrant demonstrations held in dozens of cities across the United States -- critics say that Dobbs has repeatedly crossed the line between fair-minded debate and fear-mongering. "The problem with Lou Dobbs isn't so much that he puts people with connections to hate groups on his show without revealing those ties, or even that he seems to endorse racist conspiracy theories and describes anti-immigration vigilantes as 'great Americans,'" Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Centre told IPS. Here is the link to the IPS site.
posted by Andres Oppenheimer at 11:32 AM
Get our feeds
68 Comments:
Excerpts from the IPS story, for those who don't want to go through the trouble of signing into the site:
"But Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a longtime media watchdog group, notes that Dobbs regularly stirs up anti-immigrant sentiment on his nightly programme.
"Dobbs' tone on immigration is consistently alarmist; he warns his viewers of Mexican immigrants who see themselves as an 'army of invaders' intent upon re-annexing parts of the Southwestern U.S. to Mexico, announces that 'illegal alien smugglers and drug traffickers are on the verge of ruining some of our national treasures,' and declares that 'the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans' through 'deadly imports' of diseases like leprosy and malaria," the group said.
In addition to hosting his own show, Dobbs has appeared on other CNN programmes, and he co-hosted -- along with the network's lead anchor, Wolf Blitzer -- the coverage of President George W. Bush's recent prime time speech on immigration.
Dobbs has been an aggressive supporter of "citizen border patrols" since the Minuteman Project's April 2005 "paramilitary effort to seal the Arizona border", Potok and his colleague, Heidi Beirich, reported in the Winter 2005 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Centre's Intelligence Report.
During the run-up to the Minuteman's first campaign, Dobbs gave the organisation "millions in free publicity, plugging it for weeks and turning over large segments of his air time to directly promoting the project," observed Marc Cooper, a contributing editor of The Nation magazine.
And while Dobbs still brings on guests that oppose his position, he continues to refuse "to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols," note Beirich and Potok.
The Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) Intelligence Report catalogued a number of occasions when Dobbs overlooked controversial statements, inflammatory websites, and white-supremacist connections of some of his anti-immigration guests.
Glenn Spencer, the head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, has been interviewed at least twice on the programme. His website contains "anti-Mexican vitriol" and he "pushes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest".
Dobbs has invited leftist nuts onto his show and they refused to come. Make of it what you will, you can't call him partial only to rightist nuts.
Andres, Lou Dobbs is correct. Non-Hispanic immigration to the USA is good. Latino immigration, legal and illegal, is bad. I will tell you why so. Because Latinos are a tremendously proud people, and they are very, very upset that their hated historic rivals, the "Anglos", have outdone them in every conceivable way to the point that Latinos pay their life savings to get the hell out of their countries to make desperate attempts to sneak into Anglolanida. So they feel humiliated and then hate, vowing to either bring down Anglolandia so they no longer show up proud Latinos or to use the power of the USA to promote the Spanish language and culture on the world stage. Hispanic macho pride dictates Hispanics hate the USA, that they refuse to speak English, that they boo US international sports teams.....
I sure as heck don't want people like that living in my country. No matter how much the USA does for any Hispanick immigrant, it will never be enough. So long as the world sees the "Anglos" as having outdone the Hispanics, Hispanicks will hate.
What an absurd post and what an absurd opinion. No wonder you need to be anonymous. It's the kind of opinion that belongs under a rock. Eeeeuw! Creepy crawly! Not a drop of truth in it. It sort of reads like the weird racist reasoning of a character out of Faulkner, say, Light in August. Except in parody form.
Andres you are right on point about Dobbs lack of fairness and objectivity.
He attributes to pro-immigration marchers and mainstream Latino organizations the views of a few college radicals wearing Che Guevara shirts. In one of the few times that I have seen him have people from La Raza on, he kept on talking about the Reconquista myth.
That is nothing new, Michelle Malkin and other hysterical extremists have used the same smear tactics, and propagated myths like the "reconquista" .
Where Dobbs goes one further is in his praising the single issue anti-immigration groups and the Minutemen.
If we were to apply his same criteria, we would find many extremists and racists around those organizations. But he never questions them.
Southern Poverty Law Center item on inconvenient guests
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589
FAIR article on Lou
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1162
the national association of manufacturers on the right has a blog dedicated to Lou:
http://blog.nam.org/archives/dobbs_watch/
Hey Paco, how are Anglos "immigrants" to the USA? They created the USA, there was no USA before they came here and created the USA. They are settlers of the USA, not immigrants to the USA. You Latinos pay your life savings to make desperate attempts to be sneaked into that society created by the Anglos. That makes you Latinos immigrants to the USA. Latinos aren't coming to the USA to stake out their own societies in the hinterlands of the USA. Lations force their way into already established, modern, prosperous cities. Created by the Anglos.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
The oldest continuous European settlement in what is now the continental United States was established in 1565 at St. Augustine, FL. by settlers from Cuba led by Pedro Menéndez de Avilés. In fact, Spaniards were the first to colonize more than half the 50 states. Of these, a dozen states, including California and Texas, were literally stolen from Mexico in what Abraham Lincoln denounced in 1848, on the floor of the House of Representatives as "the most unjust war in U.S. history." The Anglo claim to predominance, which you so gleefully assert, is based on squatter's law. You are, in fact, no better than those you condemn.
Manuel A. Tellechea
The oldest continuous European settlement in what is now the continental United States was established in 1565 at St. Augustine, FL. by settlers from Cuba led by Pedro Menendez de Aviles. In fact, Spaniards were the first to colonize more than half the 50 states. Of these, a dozen states, including California and Texas, were literally stolen from Mexico in what Abraham Lincoln denounced in 1848, on the floor of the House of Representatives as "the most unjust war in U.S. history." The Anglo claim to predominance, which you so gleefully assert, is based on squatter's law. You are, in fact, no better than those you condemn.
Manuel Tellechea, that's a bunch of garbage. The Spanish "colonization" you speak of was nothing more than setting up a few forts to see if there was any gold to steal. There was no settlement. And it was in about 10 states, not more than 25.
99.99% of Hispanics now here in the USA are here because they paid their life savings to make all-out desperate attempts to sneak into the society created by the Anglos.
St Augustine virutally died out, as did the rest of the Spanish towns in what is now the USA. The USA grew from what was English settlements, not Spanish settlements. The states you mention as "stolen", like Utah, Colorado and Nevada had absolutely ZERO Hispanic settlements. Arizona had 1 tiny settlement of 500 people that was bought in the Gadsden Purchase. There was no gold to steal in our Southwest, so Spaniards never put in a concerted effort to settle and develop the land. The development you see in our Southwest was created by Anglos, not by Spaniards. The highways, roads, Disneyland, the Golden Gate bridge, the Universities, ports and harbors, the agricultural industry, the Las Vegas gaming industry, the Hollywood film industry. Napa Valley wine industry. It's that society you Latinos pay your life savings to make despetrate attempts to sneka into, the society created by the Anglos. You Hispanick people wanted no part of our Southwest when it was under Hispanick control, that's why the government allowed Anglos in to settle Texas and why criminals and orphans had to be sent to California to help settle the area.
It's funny you would accuse to USA os "stealing" land as you Latinos have gone down as the greatest thieves in history, first stealing land from the Indians then stealing all their treasures and gold.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Nor did the Spaniards practice wholescale genocide against the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas, as the U.S. did in the 19th century. It seems that you should do a few mea culpas before you deign to judge the 16th century conquistadors.
In the U.S. Constitution, black slaves were counted as 3/5 ths human for representational purposes; Indians were not recognized as humans at all. (Indeed, American Indians were not accorded the right to vote in this country until 1924).
A 16th century papal bull recognized the humanity of Indo-Americans and put an end to their enslavement.
By the way, Thor, aren't you going to lecture us on your Viking ancestors and how they were the first to settle in America? There was never a people in history more given to rape, pillage and wanton murder than the Vikings. In fact, they wrote the book.
Hey Thorsten or whatever, your true colors show through, continually using the "Hispanick" slur, which is nothing more than a play on "Spick"
And anyway, if you talk about who really "created" everything west of the 13 original colonies, it would seem that it was poor Irish, openly detested by the WASP elite in the East that did most of the settling, dying and work.
Good call, Boli, I noticed that, too. Dollars to donuts, he also pronounces Lopez as LoPPPPEZZZZZZ.
Why do I get that feeling?
Paco, the USA was a world power long before any Latino immigrants forced their way into the USA. In fact, our PCI has gone down as the percentage of Hispanicks in the USA has gone up. And those Latino immigrants are only here so they can send money out of the USA. That is the historic legacy of Spanish people, robbing rich societies blind of all their wealth.
That hurts the USA, not helps us.
If Latinos want to be accepted into USA society, then they have to first show respect to the USA. I could care less if a person is illegal or legal. What I want to see are a people who show me they really want to be American.
But in the Latino people, I see nothing but hatred of the USA and the "Anglos". You people show me nothing that tells me you really want to be American. Like how you people can't bear to speak English and how you can't bear to give your kids American names and how you people can't bear to wave a USA flag. Do Chinese in Cubans give their kids names like Wang-Lung and wave Chinese flags all over Cuba and boo international Cuban sports teams? Do Lebanese do likewise? Did the Estefan family of Cuba insist their kids speak Arabic and make damn sure they have names like Youssef and Mohammed?
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Hey Manuel Tellechea, tell me how many native Indians I would find in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.
Yeah, the Spanish did include them in their society, but as slaves at the lowest rung of that society. Slaves in their own native lands.
Native Indians never played a role in the development of the USA so were not considered to be citizens.
They were at first left alone to live their traditional way of life, but when the USA moved west and ran out of room, the Indians got cheated out of their land and way of life. No denying that. But nobody in the world ever paid their life savings to be sneaked into those native Indian societies, it's Anglo society the world wants into and forces their way into, vowing they are here to stay.
Go read any account of overland USA citizens headed to the west coast. It was always Indians they encountered and never ever any Spanish settlements.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Paco, the USA does NOT need Latinos. We were successful long before Hispanics sneaked in and forced themselves on us. Blacks did the janitorial work before Latinos came to the USA. It's Blacks who are being displaced in jobs with the arrivial of Hispanics. Under my plan, the USA would allow in Southeast Asians, Filipinos and Mahatma Gandhi Indians to do the work now done by Latinos. I would also do everything in my power to help relocate Latino migrants to a Spanish speaking society they can be happy in, since that seems to be the one non-negotiable, essential element for all Latino migrants: living in a Spanish speaking society.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pthorsen, you are nothing but a hater, who spreads the lies and stereotypes of the worst part of the anti-immigration side.
Are you for real, or are you a plant? I mean no one would really be that moronic to make the authors point
The biggest US immigrant group is Germans. As in Eisenhower. Nimitz. Eric Hoffer. Einstein. Limbaugh. George Schultz. Charles Schulz.
To name a few.
Nobody remembers that. We just get sloppily lumped in as 'Anglos' all the time and the U.S. didn't even settle that many English!
By the way, amusingly, longtime Amish citizens, derived from Germanic countries, call ordinary assimilated Americans "the English."
Hey Thor: You wouldn't like those Southeast Asians or Filipinos (by the way, Filipinos ARE Southeast Asians), "Mahatma Gandhi" Indians (whatever that is), or other groups you romanticize any more than Hispanics as immigrants.
Trust me on this.
You'd be complaining about Chinese driving skills, litter, spoiled kids, too many kids, too much Catholicism, ethnic curry restaurant smells, organized crime, smoking, and their "stealing" American jobs in no time.
You wouldn't like these immigrants either. In fact, you would not like any immigrants.
NEW YORK TIMES
Immigration — and the Curse of the Black Legend
By TONY HORWITZ
Published: July 9, 2006
Vineyard Haven, Mass.
COURSING through the immigration debate is the unexamined faith that American history rests on English bedrock, or Plymouth Rock to be specific. Jamestown also gets a nod, particularly in the run-up to its 400th birthday, but John Smith was English, too (he even coined the name New England).
So amid the din over border control, the Senate affirms the self-evident truth that English is our national language; "It is part of our blood," Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, says. Border vigilantes call themselves Minutemen, summoning colonial Massachusetts as they apprehend Hispanics in the desert Southwest. Even undocumented immigrants invoke our Anglo founders, waving placards that read, "The Pilgrims didn't have papers."
These newcomers are well indoctrinated; four of the sample questions on our naturalization test ask about Pilgrims. Nothing in the sample exam suggests that prospective citizens need know anything that occurred on this continent before the Mayflower landed in 1620. Few Americans do, after all.
This national amnesia isn't new, but it's glaring and supremely paradoxical at a moment when politicians warn of the threat posed to our culture and identity by an invasion of immigrants from across the Mexican border. If Americans hit the books, they'd find what Al Gore would call an inconvenient truth. The early history of what is now the United States was Spanish, not English, and our denial of this heritage is rooted in age-old stereotypes that still entangle today's immigration debate.
Forget for a moment the millions of Indians who occupied this continent for 13,000 or more years before anyone else arrived, and start the clock with Europeans' presence on present-day United States soil. The first confirmed landing wasn't by Vikings, who reached Canada in about 1000, or by Columbus, who reached the Bahamas in 1492. It was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de León, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida.
Most Americans associate the early Spanish in this hemisphere with Cortés in Mexico and Pizarro in Peru. But Spaniards pioneered the present-day United States, too. Within three decades of Ponce de León's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachians, the Mississippi, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the East Coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Me., and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon.
From 1528 to 1536, four castaways from a Spanish expedition, including a "black" Moor, journeyed all the way from Florida to the Gulf of California — 267 years before Lewis and Clark embarked on their much more renowned and far less arduous trek. In 1540, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led 2,000 Spaniards and Mexican Indians across today's Arizona-Mexico border — right by the Minutemen's inaugural post — and traveled as far as central Kansas, close to the exact geographic center of what is now the continental United States. In all, Spaniards probed half of today's lower 48 states before the first English tried to colonize, at Roanoke Island, N.C.
The Spanish didn't just explore, they settled, creating the first permanent European settlement in the continental United States at St. Augustine, Fla., in 1565. Santa Fe, N.M., also predates Plymouth: later came Spanish settlements in San Antonio, Tucson, San Diego and San Francisco. The Spanish even established a Jesuit mission in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay 37 years before the founding of Jamestown in 1607.
Two iconic American stories have Spanish antecedents, too. Almost 80 years before John Smith's alleged rescue by Pocahontas, a man by the name of Juan Ortiz told of his remarkably similar rescue from execution by an Indian girl. Spaniards also held a thanksgiving, 56 years before the Pilgrims, when they feasted near St. Augustine with Florida Indians, probably on stewed pork and garbanzo beans.
The early history of Spanish North America is well documented, as is the extensive exploration by the 16th-century French and Portuguese. So why do Americans cling to a creation myth centered on one band of late-arriving English — Pilgrims who weren't even the first English to settle New England or the first Europeans to reach Plymouth Harbor? (There was a short-lived colony in Maine and the French reached Plymouth earlier.)
The easy answer is that winners write the history and the Spanish, like the French, were ultimately losers in the contest for this continent. Also, many leading American writers and historians of the early 19th century were New Englanders who elevated the Pilgrims to mythic status (the North's victory in the Civil War provided an added excuse to diminish the Virginia story). Well into the 20th century, standard histories and school texts barely mentioned the early Spanish in North America.
While it's true that our language and laws reflect English heritage, it's also true that the Spanish role was crucial. Spanish discoveries spurred the English to try settling America and paved the way for the latecomers' eventual success. Many key aspects of American history, like African slavery and the cultivation of tobacco, are rooted in the forgotten Spanish century that preceded English arrival.
There's another, less-known legacy of this early period that explains why we've written the Spanish out of our national narrative. As late as 1783, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Spain held claim to roughly half of today's continental United States (in 1775, Spanish ships even reached Alaska). As American settlers pushed out from the 13 colonies, the new nation craved Spanish land. And to justify seizing it, Americans found a handy weapon in a set of centuries-old beliefs known as the "black legend."
The legend first arose amid the religious strife and imperial rivalries of 16th-century Europe. Northern Europeans, who loathed Catholic Spain and envied its American empire, published books and gory engravings that depicted Spanish colonization as uniquely barbarous: an orgy of greed, slaughter and papist depravity, the Inquisition writ large.
Though simplistic and embellished, the legend contained elements of truth. Juan de Oñate, the conquistador who colonized New Mexico, punished Pueblo Indians by cutting off their hands and feet and then enslaving them. Hernando de Soto bound Indians in chains and neck collars and forced them to haul his army's gear across the South. Natives were thrown to attack dogs and burned alive.
But there were Spaniards of conscience in the New World, too: most notably the Dominican priest Bartolomé de Las Casas, whose defense of Indians impelled the Spanish crown to pass laws protecting natives. Also, Spanish brutality wasn't unique; English colonists committed similar atrocities. The Puritans were arguably more intolerant of natives than the Spanish and the Virginia colonists as greedy for gold as any conquistador. But none of this erased the black legend's enduring stain, not only in Europe but also in the newly formed United States.
"Anglo Americans," writes David J. Weber, the pre-eminent historian of Spanish North America, "inherited the view that Spaniards were unusually cruel, avaricious, treacherous, fanatical, superstitious, cowardly, corrupt, decadent, indolent and authoritarian."
When 19th-century jingoists revived this caricature to justify invading Spanish (and later, Mexican) territory, they added a new slur: the mixing of Spanish, African and Indian blood had created a degenerate race. To Stephen Austin, Texas's fight with Mexico was "a war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race." It was the manifest destiny of white Americans to seize and civilize these benighted lands, just as it was to take the territory of Indian savages.
From 1819 to 1848, the United States and its army increased the nation's area by roughly a third at Spanish and Mexican expense, including three of today's four most populous states: California, Texas and Florida. Hispanics became the first American citizens in the newly acquired Southwest territory and remained a majority in several states until the 20th century.
By then, the black legend had begun to fade. But it seems to have found new life among immigration's staunchest foes, whose rhetoric carries traces of both ancient Hispanophobia and the chauvinism of 19th-century expansionists.
Representative J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, who calls for deporting illegal immigrants and changing the Constitution so that children born to them in the United States can't claim citizenship, denounces "defeatist wimps unwilling to stand up for our culture" against alien "invasion." Those who oppose making English the official language, he adds, "reject the very notion that there is a uniquely American identity, or that, if there is one, that it is superior to any other."
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, depicts illegal immigration as "a scourge" abetted by "a cult of multiculturalism" that has "a death grip" on this nation. "We are committing cultural suicide," Mr. Tancredo claims. "The barbarians at the gate will only need to give us a slight push, and the emaciated body of Western civilization will collapse in a heap."
ON talk radio and the Internet, foes of immigration echo the black legend more explicitly, typecasting Hispanics as indolent, a burden on the American taxpayer, greedy for benefits and jobs, prone to criminality and alien to our values — much like those degenerate Spaniards of the old Southwest and those gold-mad conquistadors who sought easy riches rather than honest toil. At the fringes, the vilification is baldly racist. In fact, cruelty to Indians seems to be the only transgression absent from the familiar package of Latin sins.
Also missing, of course, is a full awareness of the history of the 500-year Spanish presence in the Americas and its seesawing fortunes in the face of Anglo encroachment. "The Hispanic world did not come to the United States," Carlos Fuentes observes. "The United States came to the Hispanic world. It is perhaps an act of poetic justice that now the Hispanic world should return."
America has always been a diverse and fast-changing land, home to overlapping cultures and languages. It's an homage to our history, not a betrayal of it, to welcome the latest arrivals, just as the Indians did those tardy and uninvited Pilgrims who arrived in Plymouth not so long ago.
Tony Horwitz, the author of "Confederates in the Attic" and "Blue Latitudes," is writing a book on the early exploration of North America.
In his excellent article on the Hispanic contribution to the creation of the United States, Tony Horwitz neglects to mention the role that Spain played in the American Revolution.
Our Spanish ally's contribution was second only to France's. Under General Bernardo Galvez, troops from Cuba defeated the British at the battles of Mobile and Pensacola.
By forcing the British to fight on two fronts, the Spanish made it possible for the colonists to begin winning battles in the North and Southeast.
The inhabitants of Havana also contributed 1.2 million livres to equip Admiral DeGrasse's fleet, which was stranded in the West Indies. These troops then proceeded to win America's independence at the battle of Yorktown.
And where were the Vikings, Thor?
I am not a big fan of Horwitz's arguments. The only reason anyone from Mexico would ever want to come here is that it's a developed country, it's got rule of law, police aren't on the take, every kid gets to go to school, a court isn't going to rule against them because of the color of their skin or who they padrino is, property rights mean something, your savings won't get ripped off through sneaky government currency devaluation, or your land subject to wholesale expropration based on your "class" and you won't have tinpot generals calling the shots. None of those things are present except in small AND CORRECTABLE doses in this country. That's the only reason people come here, if those conditions existed on Greenland and no where else, Mexicans would be going to Greenland. People come to the US because they want freedom and opportunity. They want property, mortgages, jobs, money that is worth somethihg and the law that means what it says.
All of that is the English heritage. I have not got a drop of English ancestral blood in me, but the fact is, that's where it comes from and we owe the English a huge cultural debt of gratitude.
That's why people come here. They don't come here because someone from their home country like Spain settled here in 1510 or something, they come here because of the invisible architecture of a free society, an English inheritance.
Hispanics have always been part of the tapestry of the United States. Its first fibers were woven by Spaniards, who were the first to discover and settle this country. If our ancestors had not come here first, the English would not have followed, and then all those wonderful American institutions that you so admire would never have been transplated to this continent.
Of course, immigrants from Mexico come here for greater economic opportunity. I will go even further and say that they are probably unacquainted with the history that Horwitz relates, nor would they be more inclined to come here were they familiar with it. Still, this history exists whether they know it not, or whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. It was the blood and sinew of their ancestors that helped to build this country and they certainly have as much right to be here as anyone.
I recall that elsewhere, Mora, you defended the right of return of Jews to Israel based on their 2000-year old claims. Well, the claims of Hispanics to a share in this country stretch back just 500, not 2000 years; and for all that time they have continuously inhabited the lands that their ancestors settled. Nor would their return cause the "displacement" of anyone.
Hey Manual Tellechea, the Spanish "presence" in what is now the USA was negligible by 1848 and they were inconsequential to the development of the USA into a world power. The few Spanish settlements died out, like the aformentioned St Augustine and San Diego. It was New York, Boston and Philadelphia that was the center of the USA. Not San Antonio. The settling and development of the USA came out of those cities. It was the USA/Anglos who developed our Southwest, not Spaniards. It was the Anglos who built Hoover Dam, Disneyland, created the Hollywood movie industry, built Las Vegas, the colleges and universites, put in the roads and highways, the railroads, the ports and harbors, started the agriculture, Napa Valley wine.....
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Manuel Tellechea, there was no mention of in that article of any Hispanick "contribution" to the development of the USA. There were only things showing how Spaniards in the 1500's traversed some parts of the present day USA looking to steal gold from the Indians. Whatever settlements they set up died out or were barely hanging on by 1848. The USA did not get its start from those Spanish excursions.
But hey, there were just as many British settlments in what is now the Caribbbean region of Latin America. But just like Spanish settlements in the USA, they were inconsequential to the development of Latin America. Sir Walter Raleigh was the first European to go deep into the Orinoco River in what is now Venezuela. Jimmy Angel discovered Angel Falls in Venezuela. Hiram Bingham discovered Macchu Picchu. John Stephens discoevred the lost cities of the Mayas in Mexico. Contact me by e-mail for further debate.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Manuel Tellechea, the Jews ancestral home is what is now Israel. The native indigenous peoples of the USA are native American Indians with names like the Comanche and Lakota, not Hispanicks. And those Jews created their own society, they didn't walk into a modern, prosperous society created by others then claim it as their own.
Hispanicks are not coming here to start up a new society in their "ancestral lands". They are making desperate attempts to sneak into the society created by the Anglos.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Hey Leon Mora, Tony Horwitz is just trying to sell books to Hispanics. It has been well established that Vikings were the first Europeans to the Americas and that the Chinese were the first Asians and Hawaiians the first Polynesians to the Americas. But big deal, none of those people created the USA, the country the Hispanick world is desperate to sneak into. The ratio of Amnericans to Hispanicks in 1848 was like 1200:1.
Do you ever see my ancestros claim Norwegians were here first and then demand that all cities and streets in the Americas be given full Norwegian names and that Latin America use Norwegian as its official language because "we were here first!" ? Any society in the world uses as a language the langauge of the people that created that society. They don't do radiocarbon and DNA testing to determine who the first Europeans were to arrive there or who were the first Asians, and then use that language. Heck, Nahuatl was used in Mexico for thousands of years before Spanish was forced on the local natives. Just as Arawak was used in Cuba long before any Spaniards arrived there to steal gold. Anyone feel free to contact me by private e-mail for further debate. No threats, no calling me a "racist", just honest debate.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Manuel Tellechea, one more thing about the Jews. They had no country of their own. They endured tremendous persectution in the countries they were living in. You Hispanicks have your own spanish speaking countries. Nobody is percecuting you people in your own countries and killing 6 million of you. Nor do Hispanicks have any ancestral ties to the area. Thier ancestral roots go back to either Spain or to Indian tribes in what is now Latin America.
Nor do they come here to set up their own independent societies in the hinterlands of the USA as German and Scandinavian settlers did in our Midwest in the late 1800's.
Hispanick migrants want into already established cities that Anglos created.
Always open for debate via private e-mail, 24/7.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Mein Gott, Thor! You are available for debate "24/7"? Are you a man or a computer-generated program?
I'm afraid that so long as you continue to spell Hispanic as "Hispanick" you will open yourself to charges of being a racist or a kook. You certainly are not an ignorant man, in any case, and I regret that you must descend to the intellectual level of those who coined such words as "kleagle, "klabee," "kligrapp," "klonvocation," "Kloran" and "kludd." I must warn you that if you continue to use such coinages I will be left no choice but to ignore your posts.
You are right when you say that immigrants from Mexico have ties to both Hispanic and Indo-American cultures, but this admission hardly bolsters your argument for their exclusion. On the contrary, it gives these mestizos a double-claim to residency here based on both the right of tenure (30,000 years) and the right of conquest(derived from the Spaniards).
The future, Thor, does not belong to you. You have already lost the demographic war. It may be time for you to return to Iceland, where you will find the Nordic purity you crave, and, as an added bonus, no "Hispanicks."
Manuel: Not correct - I rarely make comments on Israel (the topic bores the hell out of me), and I doubt I would have made such a statement - I can't even recall thinking such a thing. Please provide proof.
You make an erroneous statement about American history, though.
The great westward push in the US was not due to English-speaking settlers seeking the great opportunities or great pillage available in Spanish cities (and name just one that amounted to anything during the great westward push). Instead, it was a quest for land, commodities (such as gold) and opportunity. None of those things were a Spanish inheritance.
I suggest you read Paul Johnson's History of the American People, it's quite good.
The Spaniard DID put a lot of effort into their civilizations, and in fact, much more than the English, but none of these great efforts were in territories eventually won by the US. Their focus was on Lima, Mexico City and Manila and some other places. Google Acapulco and Manila together and you'll be amazed at what you find.
The Spanish rulers of Mexico have ALWAYS considered everything north of Guadalajara badlands, places for lowlife, and that went for the territories they eventually lost, too. They still do consider northern Mexico a disgusting place, best left for its denizens to kill each other. That is the attitude out of Mexico city toward its frontier and beyond.
Only the English-descended settlers and those who had adopted their culture made the West a desirable place because of their institutions. But when they arrived, it was almost all wilderness and a few settlements - most of which did not grow into great cities until the 1920s and 1930s.
Hey Manuel Tellechea, I hate to burst your bubble, but the Americans had been discovered by native American Indians thousands of years before my ancestors, the Vikings came to the Americas.
But before I blow my horn and declare Norwegian to be made the official language of all countries in the Americas, it wans't us that created the USA, the country you Hispanicks pay your life savings to be sneaked into. It was the Anglos that created the USA. It was them that developed the USA into a modern, prosperous world power. When the Anglos moved westward in the mid 1800's, they encountered Indians every step of the way, not Hispanicks. The Hispanick presence in 1848 was neglible and inconsequntial to the development of the USA into a world power. Hispanicks were outnubered by White Americans by a ratio of 1200:1 in 1848
Always open for debate via private e-mail, 24/7.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Mora:
I believe you made your impassioned defence of the Jewish claim to Palestine on babalublog a year ago. Or perhaps I have you confused with George Moneo. In any case, such is the prevailing sentiment there.
Although Israel usually votes at the U.N. in support of the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, and the Palestinians, of course, are backed by Castro, I cannot help seeing a parallel between the fate of Palestinians and Cuban exiles —both dispossessed of their land, forced to live as stateless refugees and unable to challenge their enemy on an equal footing.
Moreover, since the Europeans were responsible for the Holocaust, it is they who should have paid reparations to the Jewish survivors, not the blameless Palestinians who were compelled to surrender the country they had inhabited for 2000 years in order to salve the guilty consciences of both losers and victors in World War II. Never has a greater historical wrong been committed against any people.
Again, you are certainly right when you assert that the lands annexed by the United States in the Mexican-American War and other usurpations would not have prospered as much in the intervening 150 years if they had remained in Mexican hands. But, using that rationale, the United States could have swallowed-up practically the whole of Latin America, or, indeed, the world. Perhaps you would have regarded that as a positive development.
I find, Mora, that your thought on these matters is closer to Sarmiento's than Martí's. That is, that you are an Anglophiliac as opposed to a Hispanophiliac. This is certainly your right and history supports your position on several counts. Nevertheless, I think Martí was right: "Our America" should not be subsumed in the other America. Sarmiento and Marti, by the way, admired each other and respected each other's positions. I trust we can do likewise.
Manuel Tellechea, there never was any Spanish conquest of what is now the USA Southwest. They just delcared the land theirs one day without even bothering to settle it until 300 years later, and without consulting the native Indians on whether they could claim their land.
Always open for debate via private e-mail, 24/7.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Manuel Tellechea, the Southwest was not Mexican in 1847. It was inhabited by native American Indians. There were ZERO Hispanics living in the present day states of Utah, Nevada and Colorado. Arizona had 1 tiny settlement of 500 people, Tucson, that was purchased by the USA in the Gadsden Purchase and not "stolen" in war. Texas had 1 tiny Hispanic settlement of 1,000 people, San Antonio. New Mexico was the only state that had a significant Hispanick population. But New Mexico has never been a center of economic or technological achievement in the history of the USA and you never ever see Latin Americans sneaking into New Mecico. They want into, and force their way into the societies created by the Anglos.
Always open for debate via private e-mail, 24/7.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Thor:
Again and for the last time: You must desist from using "Hispanick" in your posts or I will refuse to answer them. I suggest that others on this thread do likewise. It is time for you to grow up.
Manuel: Must have been George, not me - I just am not a bigtime Israel person at all.
Yes, I am a big admirer of Sarmiento, you have that right.
But understanding and admiring the Anglosphere does not make me an Anglosphere supremacist, if anything, I am a fierce defender of Hispanic culture, which, like the English-derived one, has greatnesses of its own that the English simply cannot match.
So many things ... There is the anti-racism of it, going straight back to Isabella of Castile, the industriousness of it that was never matched by the English, the Catholicism of it (many strengths there, even from a nonreligious perspective), there are still intact families, there's a cultural blending facilitated by the religion, there's an appealing universality unlike any other culture, there's heroism and honor in it ... a lot of things that are real accomplishments of the Hispanic world and no, I don't think it's small stuff.
The one big weakness common in almost all: lousy governments, partly attributable to weak institutions. Fix those and all goes well. How do I know that? By the fact that Hispanics and Anglos blend so well when they are put into the US culture. No two cultures blend more harmoniously together.
Mora:
Marti was more idealistic than Sarmiento; some would say less realistic. He believed with all his heart that Latin Americas possessed all the civic virtues of their Northern neighbors, but had simply not started their republican existence with fully evolved political institutions as had the Thirteen Colonies. Nevertheless, he was fond of saying that Latin Americans had made more progress in a shorter span of time than had the Anglos given the disparity in their circumstances and would one day reach and even overtake the U.S. owing not only to their own progress, but also to the degeneration of American democracy. Marti's position was perfectly understandable in the context of his time: the U.S. had just fought a great civil war; two American presidents had been assassinated within 15 years (Lincoln and Garfield); the 1876 centennial presidential election had been stolen; the robber barons were exploiting the land; the Indian tribes were being decimated; graft in government was endemic; striking workers were shot at by company armies as well as government troops; and socialist and anarchic movements were gaining strength, etc. Probably at no time in history did the U.S. more resemble a typical Latin American Republic than in Marti's years here (1880-95).
What Marti did not see, however, was that no matter how many times American democracy faltered it always managed to right itself because its institutions were infinitely stronger and more pliable than ours and were inbedded in the very character of the North American.
Sarmiento believed that the U.S. was the greatest wonder of civilization and counseled his countrymen and all Latin Americans to throw-off the shackles of a hopelessly flawed and irredeemable tradition of local despotism, which reflected itself into all spheres of political life, from the highest to the lowest; and to embrace instead Anglo customs and institutions, copied and transplanted as exactly as possible. Unless we shed our past, Sarmiento believed that we would have no future.
Sarmiento and Marti both saw the Indian as the key to Latin America's political and material development. Sarmiento believed that the Indian spirit must be extinguished in the Indian and also in the Spaniard, who had adopted the Indian's impassiveness and aversion to progress. Marti also acknowledged that "America would not move unless the Indian moved," but Marti believed that it was the Spaniard who held back the Indian, and that the solution to the social problem was not to engraft the customs of the European on the native people but for them to embrace the uniqueness of their own condition and find solutions that conformed to it.
In the simplest terms: Sarmiento wanted the Indian in top hat and tails and Marti in his traditional native poncho.
Nevertheless, Marti and Sarmiento admired each other tremendously: Marti hailed Sarmiento as the real founder of Argentina, and Sarmiento praised Marti as the greatest writer since Victor Hugo and the best chronicler of the American scene.
Philosophically, Marti's position was in the ascendancy for most of the last century; practically, Sarmiento's assimilation at any price policy was in effect.
And how have we fared?
Leon Mora, Hispanics and Anglos do not blend well. That's why Anglos moved the hell out of Miami when Cubans moved in.
Always open for debate via private e-mail, 24/7.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Thor:
Good. You have given up your nasty habit. Don't resume it.
Cuban-Americans (in Miami and elsewhere) have been "the most successful immigrants in the history of this nation of immigrants," according to George Gilder.
They are also, undoubtedly, the whitest Hispanics in any American city. If Anglos can't accept these Hispanics, then all Anglos must be as racist as you.
But, of course, they are not. And that's the reason, or one of the reasons, that Cuban-Americans have triumphed in this country.
Jeez, if we are going to play historical guilt how about this one:
The Spanish were the ones who held the line against wacky Islamists trying to run over the rest of Europe. Lets just say that had it not for them everyone descended from Celts, Saxons, Franks, Goths, Normans would be kneeling to Mecca five times a day.
But then again, 8 centuries of constant warfare, which was a rather multilayered affair and almost never a symplistic us vs. them, leaves you more of a fighter than anything.
Paul Johnson is ok in little bursts, as in articles, but for big scope stuff he tends to overdramatize and oversimplify things. He is like a center right Howard Zinn.
boli-nica:
You are absolutely right. Spain saved Western civilization at the Battle of Lepanto.
Manierl Tellechea, Cubans are not the most successful immigrant group to ever come to the USA. The Chinese are. Anglos, Germans and Scandinavians were settlers of the USA, not immigrants to the USA. Hispanics forced their way into the societies those people created long after they were established, making them immigrants to the USA, not settlers. Tell me how Cubans are successful? Miami is the poorest city in the USA with crime, violence and corruption approaching levels found only in Spanish speaking Latin America. But before Cubans, Miami was an up and coming modern, prosperous, cosmopolitan city. Can you name just 1 invention by a Cuban living in the USA that led to the USA being able to market that product on the world stage as we do with computers and airplanes?
If indeed Cubans are such great people, why is Cuba poor and the people paying thier life savings to risk their lives to get the hell out of Cuba, and in the rest of Spanish speaking Latin America?
Always open for debate via private e-mail, 24/7.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Thor:
As I said and reiterate, Cuban-Americans are the most successful immigrants in this history of this nation of immigrants, according to George Gilder of the American Enterprise Institute. If you are interested, I direct you to his book "The Spirit of Enterprise," where he devotes a chapter to the "Cuban Miracle," as he styles it. No other ethnic group in so brief a time in this country has ever equalled let alone surpassed the income level and living standard of so-called white population. It took the descendents of Chinese coolies 130 years to do so; it took Cuban-Americans 20.
There are, of course, pockets of poverty in Miami as in all other major urban centers; but you can be sure that those areas are not inhabited by Cuban-Americans.
When Cubans arrived in Miami in 1959, it was a moribound city. Cubans revived it and transformed it into the great metropolis it is today, the gateway to Latin America and the future.
from: Paul Thorsen
Hey Manuel Tellechea, what do you mean when you say Miami is the "gateway to Latin America"????!!! No Americans pay their life savings to risk their lives to sneak into Latin America, starting their trip in "gateway" Miami. It's the other way around, Latin Americans pay their life savings to risk their lives to sneak into the USA.
Always open for debate via private e-mail, 24/7. What do you mean when you say Miami is a "great Metropolis"? Miami is the poorest city in the USA and the crime, violence and corruption is fast approaching that of Spanish speaking Latin America. What cutting edge technolgy does Miami lead the world in? What businesses created by Cubans make money for the USA on the world stage? What technology have Cubans living in the USA come up with?
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Hey Leon Mora, as much as I like you and appreciate the kind of Hispanic you are, I do not share your love of Hispanic culture. Hispanics have done nothing for the betterment of mankind. Their societies are total anarchy, chaos, violent, corrupt and poor with the population paying their life savings to get the hell out. The more Spanish last names any country has, the more screwed up it is. That's why Chili and Arhentina are the most stable Latin American countries. What it is all about is that Spain sent its criminals and other derelicts to settle their colonies and in the Americas and to rape the native Indians societies and to steal all their wealth.
Always open for debate via private e-mail, 24/7.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Thor:
The Spanish sent their noblemen and hidalgos to colonize the New World. It was the English who transported their criminals to settle their colonies, especially the U.S. and Australia. Of course, one would have to be a believer in eugenics, as you are, to think that an ancestor 20 generations removed might actually determine one's conduct today.
Well, since you don’t like to be called racist, I will call you idiot. I will agree that anglos have been successful at developing many industries: the movie industry, the gambling industry, even the war industry. Unfortunately for you, your own anglo people has developed and encouraged the immigration industry into the US. You keep repeating the infinite wisdom of the anglo-man. An such is this wisdom that the anglo-man wishes to have immigrants come and live in his great land.
Could the anglo-man had stopped immigration if he had wished to do so? Of course, but
President, Senate and House in the US are unwilling to close down the borders or expel those immigrants living in the US. The are 2 main reasons why this is so and those are the same reasons of why you are so completely wrong: 1, anglos DO want immigrants living and working in the US and 2, immigrants DO love and respect the US.
Like the insane man that permanently mumbles garbage to himself for the rest of his life, you will forever debate your hatred for immigrants, via private email, 24/7. But all current immigrants, and many more, will work, love and live in the USA well after you cease to exist.
Tell me how Cubans are successful? Miami is the poorest city in the USA with crime, violence and corruption approaching levels found only in Spanish speaking Latin America. But before Cubans, Miami was an up and coming modern, prosperous, cosmopolitan city.
Get your facts in order.
First of all, Post WW-II Miami was neither a dying city OR a some great up and comer. It was a small but growing city, with a promising tourism industry and already a hub to inter-american trade. It was a Southern city in many ways, but tempered by the huge number of transplants from the midwest and the east coast, and increasingly retirees. And it had a fairly active civic leadership that dealt as fairly with segregation and racism as just about any city its size under the Mason Dixon line did.
So I ask you Thorsen, what great deeds did the Anglo midwesterners, New Englanders, and native Floridian do that was so great, that everyone else who followed them is humbled forever????
The last time I read my American history, it seemed that the warm weather place to be was called California. How many manufacturing and electronics multi-nationals were started in the immediate Post-War years in the Miami/Ft Lauderdale area, compared to Los Angeles, Detroit, or Chicago?
Did the aerospace industry move here or even subcontract its work here? Did tens of thousands of skilled manufacturing workers come seeking work in the new Floridian automotive boom?? Did tens of thousands of returning G.I.'s eagerly enroll in the Ft. Lauderdale Institute of Technology - that worldwide institution???
NO THEY WENT TO CALIFORNIA......
And guess what, South Florida did not then, or does now have much of an industry in antyhing, except oranges, and Tourism.
The one industry that has kept this place going was as a hub for Inter-American trade. Billions of dollars of product come and go through the port, not only from the US - Latin America, but also from Latin American countries to other Latin American countries. And Latin America's money, the good, the bad, and a lot of the really ugly comes through this city. And the language spoken is Spanish.
So in this industry we are talking about large import-export companies, transportation companies, real estate.
And it was the Cubans (along with many Latin Americans) who built up that industry, because they were here, they spoke Spanish, many exiles had expertise in the area - and contacts from Cuba, and there was a pool of workers who were fairly educated - since Cuba had a fairly big middle class.
They had the opportunity and they took it. But, it could have gone the other way. People tend to forget that New Orleans was a huge gateway city for Latin Americans. Ultimately, the strengths offered by Miami with a large Cuban population won out.
Hey Boli-nica, the great Anglos did bring the aerospace industry to Florida. It's called NASA and the space shuttle located in Cape Canaveral.
They also built DisneyWorld and all the hotels in the Miami metro area. The built the roads and bridges to Key West. The colleges and universities. The great Anglso built the port of Miami, where all the goods come in from and where tourists leave on their Carinbean cruises. Again, if you Cubans are so great at creating modern, prosperous societies, why is Cuba poor and the populace desperate to get the hell out? And not out to just anywhere, but specifically into Anglolanida. What inventions have Cubans or any other Hispanic groups come up with to make life better for all of humanity? Any immunizations? Inventions? Why is Miami the poorest city in the USA now that Hispanics have arrived in great numbers and the corruption off the charts approaching what is seen in Spanish speaking Latin America?
always available for debate via e-mail,
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Hey anonymous, post #52, I want to know by what right you Cubans and all other Hispanic groups have to go around the world forcing your way into rich societies all over the world, especially Anglo societies, robbing those societies blind of all their wealth, forcing the Spanish language and culture on those societies and leaving such socieites in abject poverty once the rape is complete? As is the historic legacy of the Spanish people. First sarting with the great Azecs and Incas and now continuing with the USA. By what right???!!!!
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Thorsen listen slowly, stay focused and answer my question. What great things did did Anglo native Floridians and midwestern transplants do in the 150 years they had to rule this place before the Cubans arrived????
You expect everyone who arrived after 1959 to do great scientific feats and discoveries. So it is fair to know what their predecessors did. Someone had to set the bar high, No??
LMAO..still can't believe you answered. NASA. ...I guess Von Braun was a Floridian.......RESIDENT....LOL...
Yes the "great Anglos", if by that you mean the Federal government did build Cape Canaveral...because they 1. needed cheap land, 2. next to the ocean, 3. with great year-round weather, and 4. enough crooked politicians who would keep it quiet if some toxic chemicals got spilled or an Atlas or two ended up in the Everglades.
Disneyworld. Seems that was completed in 1970..(after Cubans). AND WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE???? Nothing, see Cape Canaveral scenarios 1, 3, and 4. without the Atlas.
--BY THE WAY...check out pictures of old Walt himself. go on Google. He looks awfully LIKE A SPANIARD!! Rumor was he had Castillian blood. Yikes... LOOK CLOSELY..
Hey I agree that natives and new transplants built a heck of a lot of Miami. The port, roads, universities, Hospitals, hotels. They redid the downtown area.
But it never is enough to just build things with Federal funny money, the Soviets built all sorts of things. What good is infraestructure if nothing gets done on it. You need to attract new customers, retain old customers and expand your business. And the Cubans did just that. They did a lot of the groundwork, and a ran a lot of the support businesses, that made the city attractive to Latin Americans who wanted to ship or buy products in the US, who wanted to shop and vacation close to their countries, who needed a house if they were exiled, who wanted to deposit their money outside the US.
When commodity prices went up, and there was money in Latin America, a lot of it ended up in Miami.
---That is creating wealth.
If not that business goes to New Orleans a port city where well-off Latin Americans have done business for more than a century.
It went to Miami.
Who are these mythic "Anglos" Thorsen keeps talking about? People of English descent? Scots? Irish? Germans? Dutch? I've never met an Anglo in my life.
I don't know who those Anglo's are, either, sounds like something out of the imagination of Austrian Corporals who listened to much Wagner.
lili, there were not 100,000 Mexicans living in our Southwest in 1848. Colorado, Utah and Nevada each had ZERO Mexicans living there. Arizona had 500 total Mexicans at Tuscon. California had only 7,000 Mexicans along the coast. Texas had 2,000 Mexicans. It was only New Mexico that had a significant Mexican population, up to 50,000 people of Mexican heritage. And New Mexico was never a center of economic activity, not then, not now. At that same time, 1848, Boston, Philadelphia and New York each had 5 times the population of that of Mexicans in the entire USA Southwest.
It was the USA/Anglso who started the California agriculture industry, the Anglos who built Disneyland and the Hoover Dam, Anglos who brought water to Arizona, Anglos whho laid the train tracks, Anglso who built the ports and harbors,m the roads and highways, the colleges and universites, built the Golden Gate Bridge, started up the Las Vegas gaming industry, started Silicon Valley in San Jose, the Hollywood movie industry.....
The Treaty of Guadalupe HIdalgo gave rights and acccepted those Mexicans into USA society who chose to take on the character of the USA. NO special language rights were given to either those holdover Mexicans or the tens of millions of Hispanicks who would sneak in and force their way into Anglos society 130 years later.
ALL land claims were respected, unlike Spaniards who just stole the land from the Indians.
So what if some Mexicans are indigenous? They are not indigenous to the USA and so we don't owe them squat. Yeah, there were some Mexicans we took on in 1848, but they were negligible and inconsequential to the development of the USA into a world power. 99.99% Of Hispanics now in the USA are here because they paid their life savings to make desperate attempts to sneak into the society created by the Anglos.
Likewise, I could show you just as many British settlements and Anglo explorers in todays' Latin America.
E-mail me for the info. But like Mexicans in the USA, those British settlements and Anglo explorers of Latin Ametica were inconsequential to the development of Latin America.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
boli-nica, you know full well that that money coming into Miami banks from Latin America is dirty drug money. You know it and I know it. E-mail me for the proof if you want it.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
lili, yes, there was a substantial British, English speaking presence in what is now the Caribbean region of mainland Latin America. Did you check out Costa Rica's World Cup roster and see the names of Jervis Drummond, Kurt Bernard and Harold Wallace? They weren't there because their ancestors made all-out desperate attempts to sneak into and force their way into the societies created by the Spaniards. They are descended from colonies established by the British. It was also Anglo Hiram Bungham who discovered Macchu Picchu. Anglo Jimmy Angel who discovered Canaima national part and Angel Falls in Venezuela. John Stephens who discovered the lost cities of the Mayas. Sir Walter Raleigh who sailed far up the Orinoco River, further than anyone else had. Teddy Roosevelt who discovered the River of Doubt in Brasil.
http://www.us.terra.com/shared/worldcup2006/eng/bio/12/12689.html
Name: Drummond Johnson, Jervis
Age 29
Birth 08/09/1976
Height 1.75 Weight 72.00
Place of Birth Limón, Costa Rica
Name: Bernard, Kurt
Birth 08/08/1977 Height 0.00 Weight 0.00
Place of Birth Costa Rica
Name: Wallace McDonald, Harold
Birth 07/09/1975
Height 1.75 Weight 72.00
Place of Birth San José, Costa Rica
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Lili, the USA did respect all legitimate land grants of Mexicnas and bought other lands from Mexicans:
From "Colorado, South of the Border", by Ralph Taylor, copyright 1963
page 48
Congress confirmed 13 grants on June 21, 1860. Included in Colorado were the Sangre de Cristo, the Maxwell, the Tierra Armarilla and the Louis Maria Baca No.4.
Finally, in 1812, Agustin Ortiz purchased the site of Arivaca - an important mining and ranching center since the mid eighteenth century - at public auction. Charles Poston purchased that hacienda from Ignacio Ortiz in 1856 for $10,000.
The lifestyle of the Mexican Californios prevailed into the early 1860s, when a severe drought destroyed the cattle herds on the ranchos. Families such as the Picos and the Estradas sold much of their land to Anglo newcomers, including the Steele brothers, George Hearst, and Patrick Murphy. These new landowners transformed the hide-and-tallow industry into beef-and-dairy-cattle production.
From "The Blond Ranchero", by Juan Francisco Dana, copyright 1960.
page 75
The Pismo grant originally belonged to Don Jose Ortega. The ownership became involved in time for Ortega sold it to Isaac Sparks who in turn sold it to Don Juan Price and captain David Mallagh.
Santa Ana, California
In 1869, William H. Spurgeon purchased 70 acres from the Yorba family and plotted a townsite. The new town was given the name Santa Ana.
Paso Robles
The area known as Paso Robles was originally part of a Mexican land grant. This grant consisted of 25,993 acres and was held in title by Petronillo Rios, a retired Mexican army sergeant. In 1857, the land was purchased for $8,000 by the Blackburn and James families (Drury James was the uncle of famed outlaw Jesse James).
ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
Aliso Viejo was originally part of the 22,000 acre Moulton Ranch. The Moulton family took title in the 1890's to land originally granted to Juan Avila by the Mexican government in 1842.
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA
On May 15, 1846 a land grant was issued to Don Pedro Carrillo by Governor Pio Pico for "the island or Peninsula in the Port of San Diego." Carrillo's ownership of the land was brief as he sold the property just five months later to the American captain of a trading ship, Bezer Simmons, for $1000.00.
La Habra
Don Mariano Reyes Roldan was granted 6,698 acres and named his land Rancho Canada de La Habra. The year was 1839, and the name referred to the "Pass Through the Hills," the natural pass to the north first discovered by Spanish explorers in 1769. In the 1860's Abel Stearns purchased Rancho de La Habra
LA MESA, CALIFORNIA
When Mexico became independent in 1821, Santiago Arguello was granted 60,000 acres. In 1868, Robert Allison purchased 4,000 acres from the Arguello estate.
San Clemente,
1845-English sea captain Juan Forester, who had married California's governor Pio Pico's sister, was granted Rancho Mission Vieja (Mission Viejo). He also bought the Capistrano mission buildings for $710, and took his family there to live.
San Ramon, California
American settlers came to San Ramon in 1850, when Leo Norris purchased 4,450 acres from Don Amador. He and his partner William Lynch built the first frame house (made of redwoods from Oakland) and planted the first barley crop.
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
In the mid 1860's, a severe drought decimated the cattle population, forcing the large ranchos to sell smaller parcels to new settlers for agriculture uses.
pasadena, california
He and his sons subsequently lost the land which changed ownership a few more times before being granted on November 28, 1843, by Governor Manuel Micheltorena to his good friend, Colonel Manuel Garfias, son of a distinguished Mexican family.
In 1852, two years after California was admitted as a state to the Union, Garfias built an adobe hacienda on the east bank of the Arroyo, where he and his family proceeded to live in grand style, until he could not meet the interest payment due on a loan. Title to the land was then transferred in 1859 to his lenders, Dr. John S. Griffin and Benjamin "Don Benito" Wilson. Portions of the Rancho San Pasqual were thereafter sold, leaving Griffin and Wilson with 5,328 acres in 1873.
Los Alamitos, California
Granted to son Juan Jose Nieto, he soon sold the property to then Governor Figueroa for $500. Upon the death of the governor, the land was bought by Abel Stearns in 1842 for $5,934.
San Pablo, California
Mexico gained independence from Spain, and began to divide up land owned by the missions. The overseer of Rancho San Pablo requested permission to claim the rancho as his own and in 1823, Francisco Castro was granted 17,000 acres of land.
The Castro descendants began to sell off portions of their Rancho to American ranchers and farmers.
San Bernardino, California
Dedicated to expanding Brigham Young's religious empire, the religious pioneers purchased the 40,000-acre San Bernardino Rancho in 1852, for $77,000, with a down payment of $7,000.
ESCONDIDO, California
In 1886, the Escondido Land and Title Company acquired the land grant, laid out the town site, and divided the valley into small farms suitable for grapes or citrus.
Anaheim, California
John Frohling and George Hansen, a pair of German businessmen, bought 1,165 acres of brush covered rancho from Juan Pacifico Ontiveros and created the Los Angeles Vineyard Society.
San Pablo, California
in 1823, Francisco Castro was granted 17,000 acres of land.
This covered land that is now Richmond, El Sobrante, and Pinole, and extended all the way out to the bay. The Gold Rush and the annexation of California by the United States brought drastic changes to San Pablo. The Castro descendants began to sell off portions of their Rancho to American ranchers and farmers.
EL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA
In 1906 W. F. Holt and C.A. Barker purchased the land on which El Centro was eventually built for about forty dollars an acre and invested $100,000 in improvements.
The first permanent European settlement in our area was in 1844 by Pierson B. Reading (pronounced Redding), an immigrant to Alta California from the United States. From Gobernador Micheltorena, Reading was granted a vast domain stretching 19 miles in length and three miles wide along the west bank of the Sacramento River from Cottonwood Creek to Salt Creek north of what is now Redding.
Salinas evolved from the purchase of two ranchos (Rancho Nacional and Rancho Sausal) and the business dealings of two early settlers (James Bryant Hill and Jacob Leese). Hill purchased the 6,700 acre Rancho Nacional with the intent of settling up a huge farming project. With financial backers, Hill set up his offices near the Salinas River outside of the present-day city where Highway 68 crosses the river. Although he produced record amounts of wheat and barley, Hill ended up going under financially, and his holdings went to his investors. Prior to this failure, however, a settlement known as "Hilltown" developed (near the intersection of the Monterey Highway and Salinas River), and Hill found himself in 1854 to be the first Postmaster for the Salinas area.
Jacob Leese purchased the 10,000 acre Rancho Sausal on the other side of the Zanjon del Alisal from Hill's purchase; the majority of present-day Salinas was within this holding. He paid $6,000 for the property. Leese, a wealthy merchant with dealings in both San Francisco and Monterey, sold some 80 acres to Elias Howe, often credited as the real founder of Salinas, in 1856. At the site of "the great bend in the slough," Howe built the famed Halfway House which was purchased by Alberto Trescony in 1857.
On Dec 4, 1845, the last Mexican governor Pio Pico, sold the mission of San Juan Capistrano to his brother-in-law, John Forster, and James McKinly for $710.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
lili, most of the Spanish named USA Southwest cities were given their names by the Anglos who settled the towns, or nowadays they are forced on us by Hispanicks under the ruse of "wanting to preserve the heritage of the area", but in reality is just trying to fool the world into thiknking Hispanicks must have created those cities.
ALTURAS, California
Until 1874, Alturas was known as Dorris Bridge (named for James Dorris, the
town's first white settler). He built a simple wooden bridge across the creek
at the east end of town.
Atascadero, California
The City was founded as California's first planned community in 1913 by E.G.
Lewis and was incorporated in 1979.
CERRITOS, California
Formerly an agricultural center, the community was known as Dairy Valley until
1967. The city then was renamed Cerritos (Spanish, "little hills") after a
ranch established here in the 1780s.
CHICO, CALIFORNIA
Chico, city, Butte County, northern California; incorporated 1872. The
community was laid out in 1860 by General John Bidwell on land of his Rancho
Arroyo Chico (Spanish, "little stream"), hence its name
Costa Mesa, California
By this time, the little town of Harper, named after a nearby rancher, had
emerged on a siding of the Santa Ana and Newport Railroad. On May 11, 1920,
Harper officially changed its name to Costa Mesa....
La Palma, California
But by the mid-1960s Dairyland farmers decided their land had become too valuable to remain wholly agricultural. They changed the city's name to La Palma in 1964 and drafted a master plan with well-defined residential, commercial and industrial areas.
DEL MAR, California
Del Mar means "by the sea", and the origin of the name can be traced back to
Ella Loop who had previously given the name to the tent city on the beach that
she and her husband, Theodore, established in the early 1880s.
DURANGO, Colorado
Durango was founded by representatives of the Denver and Rio Grande Railway in
1880 to exploit the gold and silver mining boom in the area.
EL SEGUNDO
In 1911, workers of the Standard Oil Company began to settle in the El Segundo
area. "El Segundo", which means "the second" in Spanish, is the second refinery
of the Standard Oil Company of California.
EL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA
El Centro was founded and incorporated as a city in 1907. In 1906 W. F. Holt
and C.A. Barker purchased the land on which El Centro was eventually built for
about forty dollars an acre and invested $100,000 in improvements.
El Monte, California
The first of a few non-Spanish towns to be settled in the Los Angeles Basin was
El Monte, where some Texas farmers had made homes in 1852.
El Cerrito, California
After the 1906 earthquake and fire in San Francisco the village of Rust (now El
Cerrito) started to grow as refugees from San Francisco moved to this side of
the Bay to live.
Wilhelm F. Rust born in Hanover, Germany on November 27, 1857 came to
California in 1883.
LA PUENTE, CALIFORNIA
The City was incorporated on August 1, 1956. The community of La Puente began
in 1841 when European settlers arrived by wagon train from New Mexico and
obtained title to the large 48,000 acre Rancho La Puente.
LA MESA, CALIFORNIA
When Mexico became independent in 1821, Santiago Arguello was granted 60,000
acres. In 1868, Robert Allison purchased 4,000 acres from the Arguello estate.
On this land he operated a ranch and rest stop known as Allison Springs. A land
boom began as water and rail transportation came into the area in the 1880's.
In 1894, A.S. Crowder and Joseph Allison filed the La Mesa Springs subdivision
map, and the new town became official.
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Mormons from Utah were the region's first settlers, sent in 1855 by Brigham
Young to build a fort. They were attracted by the artesian springs in the arid
valley along the Old Spanish Trail. The Mormons abandoned the site in 1857, and the United
States Army built Fort Baker there in 1864. With the coming of the San Pedro,
Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad in 1905, Las Vegas became a railroad town.
Marina Del Rey, California
During the late 1880's land boom in Southern California, one visionary named
Moye L. Wicks saw the potential of Playa del Rey as a harbor. In 1886 he
organized the Ballona Harbor and Improvement Company with a capital stock of
$300,000 to dredge out "Port Ballona." The board of directors included James
Campbell, H.W. Mills, E.H Boyd, F. Sabichi, Doctor Lotspeich and himself.
MESA, Arizona
founded by MORMONS 1878, inc. 1883. The city's population multiplied fivefold
from 1960 to 1980 and 89% from 1980 to 1990. It has electronics, aircraft,
metal, and machine-tool industries.
The Spanish name for "table" was chosen as the community's name because of its
location on a plateau overlooking the Salt River valley
MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
The city was laid out in 1870 by the Central Pacific Railroad. It became a
shipping and supply hub as well as an agricultural center when irrigated
agriculture began in 1903. The city incorporated in 1884. The city's name,
Spanish for "modest," is a tribute to William C. Ralston, a prominent
California financier who declined to have the community named for him.
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
The Seminole people lived in the region of present-day Orlando before white
settlers arrived in the late 1830s. Fort Gatlin was built near the site of
today's city during the Second Seminole War, and Orlando grew up around it.
First named Jernigan for a local trader, the city adopted its current name in
1857.
Palo Alto, California
The town of Palo Alto was officially named in 1892. Palo Alto began late. When
Americans came to the Peninsula, after the Indian, mission, and rancho eras,
Mayfield and Menlo Park became railroad stops while the future Palo Alto
remained a hayfield. But their many bars repelled Leland Stanford, who wanted a
clean community associated with his new university -- a town where education
reigned. His associate, Timothy Hopkins, had an option to buy the hayfield, and
with Stanford's help, Hopkins did, and laid out homesites. Enthusiastic buyers
came, and in April 1894, the new residents incorporated as a city to ensure
their water supply.
Santa Maria
incorporated 1905. The site was purchased by American settlers in 1837 and was
surveyed in 1874. Santa Maria was known as Central City until 1885, when it was
renamed to reflect the area's Spanish heritage.
Santa Ana, California
In 1869, William H. Spurgeon purchased 70 acres from the Yorba family and
plotted a townsite. The new town was given the name Santa Ana. In 1886, Santa
Ana was incorporated as a city. Orange County was separated from Los Angeles
County in 1889 and Santa Ana was made the County seat
SALINAS, California
The name of the city is Spanish for "salt marshes," which are found along the
Salinas River.
In 1867 Alberto Trescony, Alan Riker and William Jackson formed a partnership
with cattle rancher Eugene Sherwood and laid out a city plan of a half-square
mile.
Two years later the name was changed to the "City of Salinas" and incorporated.
Salinas evolved from the purchase of two ranchos (Rancho Nacional and Rancho
Sausal) and the business dealings of two early settlers (James Bryant Hill and
Jacob Leese).
SACRAMENTO, California
founded by Swiss immigrant John Sutter in 1839 and named after the Sacramento
River which the city was founded on. A German-born Swiss businessman, Sutter
arrived in San Francisco in 1839 and obtained an enormous grant of 48,000 acres
at the junction of the Sacramento and American Rivers, where he established
"New Helvetia," a settlement with a fort, orchards, vineyards, and wheatfields.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
Land developers laid out the community in 1875. Santa Monica was incorporated
in 1886.
Col. Robert S. Baker, who originally thought the area would make a good sheep
ranch, purchased the land in the early 1870's. On July 10, 1870, millionaire
gold-and-silver miner Senator John P. Jones partnered with Baker to have the
Los Angeles County Recorders office officially record the site of Santa Monica.
SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA
In 1849 the Gold Rush struck California, and thousands journeyed to the state
in search of wealth and prosperity. However, many who were not successful in
the gold fields soon moved on to the Bay Area, and settled in the San Leandro
area. As a result of this increased settlement, in 1855 John Ward, the
son-in-law of Joaquin Estudillo, filed a map of a townsite to be called San
Leandro with the County government. San Leandro was incorporated as a town on
March 21,1872.
San Ramon, California
American settlers came to San Ramon in 1850, when Leo Norris purchased 4,450
acres from Don Amador. He and his partner William Lynch built the first frame
house (made of redwoods from Oakland) and planted the first barley crop. In
1852 Joel and Minerva Fowler Harlan built their first home on today's county
line; James Dougherty bought 10,000 acres from Amador; and Major Samuel Russel
settled on 600 acres near Norris Canyon.
Many of the people who founded San Ramon are remembered today because their
names grace various canyons, hills and streets. Some of these pioneers were
Norris, Lynch, Harlan, McCamley, Crow, Cox, Bollinger, Fereira, Boone, Meese,
Glass and Wiedemann.
Tavares, Florida
http://www.tavares.org/
The City of Tavares was founded in 1880 by Major St.Claire Abrams in hopes that it would be the capital of Florida. Instead it became the county seat in 1887.
Named by founder Alexander St. Clair Abrams, for a Spanish ancestor
San Pedro, California
In 1899, Edward Muller, a prominent founding citizen of San Pedro built a home
at First and Front Street for his parents who resided in Wilmington. They
choose not to move to the new home. William Muller purchased the home in 1901.
San Bernardino, California
The stealing continued, however, until a company of nearly 500 Mormons arrived
in the valley in 1851, making camp at the mouth of a creek which flowed briskly
through the valley to the Santa Ana River.
Dedicated to expanding Brigham Young's religious empire, the religious pioneers
purchased the 40,000-acre San Bernardino Rancho in 1852, for $77,000, with a
down payment of $7,000.
The community thrived and in 1854 the City of San Bernardino was officially
incorporated. Population at the time was 1,200 – 900 of them Mormons.
VISALIA, California
Visalia, city, seat of Tulare County, south central California, in the San
Joaquin Valley, on the Kaweah River delta; settled 1852, incorporated as a city
1864. The city is named for early settler Nathan Vise
YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
In 1907, Jacob Stern, a Fullerton resident and owner of portions of the former
Yorba lands, sold a large area to the Los Angeles based Janss Corporation. The
Janss Corporation subdivided this property and named the new town "Yorba
Linda," "Yorba" after the early land grant family and "Linda" meaning pretty in
Spanish.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
lili, are you indeed correct. Miami's Cuban population has changed Miami. They changed it from an up and coming, modern cosmopolitan city, to the poorest city in the USA with crime, violence and corruption fast approaching what is found only in Latin America.
http://tcbsolutions.net.phtemp.com/Stressful_Cities.html
Miami has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country as well as one of the highest property crime rates.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/30/pf/city_county_rankings/index.htm
August 31, 2005
Poorest American cities with a
population of 250,000 or greater Rank City Median household income, 2004
1 Miami, FL $24,031
2 Newark, NJ $26,309
3 Cleveland, OH $27,871
4 Detroit, MI $27,871
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Lili, what this is all about is that you Hispanics are a tremendously proud people and there are 2 things macho Hispanic pride will never allow to keep as the status quo:
1) macho Hispanick pride will NEVER allow the world to perceive Hispanics as having created poor, unlivable, crime-ridden societies all over the wolrd.
2) macho Hispanick pride will never allow the world to perceive the "Anglos", the hated historic rivals of their beloved Spaniards, as having outdone proud Hispanics on the world stage.
So Hispanics have dedicated their lives to wiping out the Anglo heritage of the USA and to go all-out to try and plagiarize the good work of the Anglos to try and fool the world into thinking Hispanicks must have created the USA. You people do it by forcing us to give full Spanish names to our cities and streets under the ruse of "wanting to preserve the heritage of the area", even though our heritage was first native American, by introducing legislation to create USA national holidays that honor Hispanicks and by going all-out to force the USA to adopt Spanish as our language. That's how you Hispanicks go about "proving" to the world that Hispanicks are just as capable as anyone else in creating modern, prosperous societies.
That as Hispanics pay their life savings to get the hell out of their countries to sneak into Anglo society.
Paul Thorsen
PThorsen240@aol.com
Lilli:
You are right; why is it that people of Latino roots are called Hispanics? As far as I know there is no country called "Hispania".
Paul: You sound very much like a good friend called mini-me. You both would get along pretty well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi my friends! I'm writing to you because I just came across a business that I think has great potential. It lets you save money on almost everything. Make money from almost everything, Including home loans- plus... help lower your taxes--best of all--it requires absolutely no investment. I thought you might be interested and like to check it out...
Here I have a low cost mlm site/blog. It successfully covers low cost mlm related stuff and almost everything else!
Come and check it out if you get time, Scott.
Dear Colonel Villahermosa:
If you had read the entire thread, you would also have been upset that certain commentators called into question the participation of U.S. Hispanics in America's wars since the Revolution. Your excellent article, which is widely reproduced on the internet, provides irrefutable proof that Hispanics have been in the vanguard of this country's defense.
The article was accompanied by a picture of the President Reagan investing the Congressional Medal of Honor on a Mexican-American soldier. I assumed, since the soldier was not identified, that it was you. Naturally, I wished to honor your service. My apologies to you for this misunderstanding on my part.
It was impossible within the confines of this space to quote your entire article, but nothing was altered in the passages that were quoted.
With highest regards,
Manuel A. Tellechea
Lou Dobbs is no better than
Bill O Reilly.They are made with
the same thing,whatever it is.
The american expats in Panama are going the same bad,criminal things
Lou Dobbs complains about
illegal inmigrants in the U.S
So,I am citizen of Panama and as many other citizens in Panama,we
do not like to see american
expats raping,committing millionary frauds or porno acts against our panamanian children
either.
So,criminal,perverse,corrupted
people are everywhere.
Lou Dobbs has its right to
defend his country from any
foreign threat.
I will do the same in Panama towards any criminal american expat doing the same in my country.
It is fair.
manchester community college
Post a Comment
<< Home