Theodore Roosevelt's Remarks on Being an American

[RetiredGySgt]

The problem is the "new" wave do not want to belong, they want to make this into what they ran away from.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am fairly clear on assimilation. I object to those who fly the mexican flag, refuse to learn English, yet demand the protections of our nation.

Identity is fine so long as it is an aspect of being an American.

Noted and agreed. I did misunderstand the intent of your post and I apologize. Sometimes I argue the other person's point best.

 

[trobinett]

The problem is the "new" wave do not want to belong, they want to make this into what they ran away from.

I wonder when the liberals will figure this out?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is that what you think assimilation is, respect for symbols? No question that when my grandparents came here, they couldn't wait to be "yenkees", as they said. But it wasn't just a respect for symbols, though love of country was part of it. It was more a "sense" of being part of something, but it wasn't defineable in any way and it certainly had nothing to do with "inalienable rights", though they appreciated the freedoms they found here. Mostly, being "American" meant they could be themselves and practice their religion without pogroms every Sunday night. As for language, new immigrants, I've found, are only successful at that to a degree. Most speak their native language at home and around others who come from the same place. For example, my neighborhood is largely Russian immigrants. The parents of the kids in my son's class speak Russian while waiting to pick them up after school and speak Russian in their stores. Their KIDS speak English and will have a "culture" that's more like any other person who's family has lived here. But I've never found that assimilating was about symbols. It's simply being here long enough where you're less like where your ancestors came from and more like what you see on TV and the people around you.

In fact, this country was founded on "rebellion" and not assimilation. So I'd say it may be *more* American, if there's such a thing, to be a bit rebellious, non-conformist and individualistic. Just my opinion.... but then again, I also don't come from a white, anglo-saxon background, so my observations might be a bit different.

And that's what you got from my post? Symbols? I must be really slipping. I made no reference to what language is spoken in the home, nor does that have anything to do with what I was saying. The "rebellion(s)" that founded this country were more to have the freedoms and embrace the kinds of values that make America what it is more than they were in opposition to those opposed. This is why we no longer make war against those we once opposed. They are allowed to be themselves while we gained the right to be ourselves.

I live in one of the most multicultural areas in the country, and the 'white Anglo-Saxon descendents' are in a minority in my neighborhood. On any given summer weekend morning when folks are out and about, I could hear three or four different languages being spoken among family members and as many more regional 'accents' that were developed elsewhere in the nation. But all these folks can and do conduct business in English, most fly the American flag on the Fourth of July and other appropriate occasions, and most put seasonal lights on their houses and/or trees whether or not they celebrate Christmas or Chanukah in any traditional sense. Several will display yard signs supporting the candidate of their choice during election season. They are good neighbors enjoying a good place to live in harmony and they are Americans all.

Again it is not about everybody becoming carbon copies of everybody else. We would lose something quite special here if that should happen.

As RGS summarized, it is about everybody valuing the same basic principles of what being an American is and not recreating the same problems they left behind when they chose to come here.

 

[pegwinn]

Noted and agreed. I did misunderstand the intent of your post and I apologize. Sometimes I argue the other person's point best.

No worries. I am not the great communicator myself.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Foxfyre
Your short account of history is somewhat revisionist as Mexico had no formal immigration policy at that time but in fact INVITED Europeans and Americans to move into and settle the territory and thus become dutiful tax payers to the Mexican government.

WHAT?!?!?!?!

The mexican government didn’t have citizenship and immigration laws in the 19th century!?!?

Did the mexican people live in huts, hunt buffalos, use “exotic” nicknames like “Caballo Loco” (Crazy Horse) and pray to the Great Spirit in the 19th century too, Foxfyre?



Dude, you are completely blinded by nationalism and totally unable to debate this issue with a minimum of impartiality.

Mexico HAD immigration policies in the 19th century.

These laws were consistently and blatantly violated by thousands of american settlers who entered Mexico illegally.

These are historical facts that aren’t even open for debate.

But I understand the reasons behind your denial, Foxfyre.

You are trying to legitimise the landgrab of more than half of Mexico’s territory by denying historical facts and by resorting to logical fallacies, like this one:

“Hey, we did it, I give you that, but the Spaniards/Mexicans did it to the Indians too.”

Let me show you the RIGHT WAY to legitimise the landgrab of Mexican territory, kitten:

America/Americans usurped half of Mexico and the mexican government/people accepted the loss of these territories.

The moment Mexico came to terms with the loss of its northern territories, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO, ARIZONA ETC, ETC... BECAME AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE.

Human societies cannot renounce to their lands today and then reivindicate the same territories 150 years later.

I must also add for the umpteenth time that no native hispanic population was displaced by the annexation and this also helped legitimise american sovereignty over these territories.

See what I mean, Foxfyre?

This is the right way to legitimise american possession of all those former mexican provinces.

THERE’S NO NEED TO DENY HISTORICAL FACTS FOR THAT.

 

[Shogun]

San Francisco, Yerba Buena, Yerba Mala...

San Francisco, Good Herb, Bad Herb...

Esto es todo español, loco!!!

This is all spanish, you lil fool!!!

HAHAHAHA!


DINGDINGDINGDINGDING! WE HAVE A WINNER!


Kinda like HERMAN, Missouri is a *GASP* GERMAN TOWN!



Where GERMAN culture is celebrated with evidence of first and second generation GERMAN LANGUAGE saturating the town history.


DOH!


http://www.hermannmissouri.com/

What kind of name for a town is Hermann, anyway?

The City of Hermann, Missouri takes its name from Hermann the Cherusker.

Hermann the Cherusker (the Romans called him Arminius) is a German folk hero of the first century who annihilated three Roman Legions in the Battle of Teutoburger in 9 A.D. at the ripe old age of 27 years old. Historians say his victory was the beginning of the end of domination by the empire of the Ceasars over Germany as well as the British Isles. To many Germans, he is understandably a symbol for strength.

In his honor, the Germans erected a tall monument of him near Detmold, Germany in 1875, and a similar monument in New Ulm, Minnesota, was erected in 1897. Pictured at right is statue of Hermann that guards the entrance of Spassberg, a German village at Six Flags Fiesta Texas in San Antonio.


Hermann, son of Sigimer, was one of the Germanic princes of the Cherusci (also known as the Cherusker tribe). He and his brother, Flavus, were educated by the Romans, and Flavus ultimately would take up arms against his own people. Hermann became an officer in the Roman military forces, but when he returned to his native land of Germany, he soon objected to the imposition of Roman law upon his people. Hermann was determined to prevent his country from being delivered up to Rome. Hermann knew that the Romans were superior in their equipment, organization, and numbers, but he was convinced that if the Romans came and fought in his home country, his knowledge of the land would be enough of an advantage to overpower the Romans. His attacks were successful, and he swiftly defeated the Roman Army, causing people far and wide to rebel against the Romans.

Hermann's heroics for his people were not without extreme cost to him. In vengeance, the Romans captured his pregnant wife and took her off to slavery in Rome. A son was born to his wife in Rome and had to remain a slave for the rest of his life. Hermann never saw his wife again or his son. Hermann died 12 years after his great military victory.

German, Roman, and British historians recognize Hermann as one of the most ingenious personalities who precipitated the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of a Germanic Europe.

 

[Foxfyre]

WHAT?!?!?!?!

The mexican government didn’t have citizenship and immigration laws in the 19th century!?!?

Did the mexican people live in huts, hunt buffalos, use “exotic” nicknames like “Caballo Loco” (Crazy Horse) and pray to the Great Spirit in the 19th century too, Foxfyre?



Dude, you are completely blinded by nationalism and totally unable to debate this issue with a minimum of impartiality.

Mexico HAD immigration policies in the 19th century.

These laws were consistently and blatantly violated by thousands of american settlers who entered Mexico illegally.

These are historical facts that aren’t even open for debate.

But I understand the reasons behind your denial, Foxfyre.

You are trying to legitimise the landgrab of more than half of Mexico’s territory by denying historical facts and by resorting to logical fallacies, like this one:

“Hey, we did it, I give you that, but the Spaniards/Mexicans did it to the Indians too.”

Let me show you the RIGHT WAY to legitimise the landgrab of Mexican territory, kitten:

America/Americans usurped half of Mexico and the mexican government/people accepted the loss of these territories.

The moment Mexico came to terms with the loss of its northern territories, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO, ARIZONA ETC, ETC... BECAME AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE.

Human societies cannot renounce to their lands today and then reivindicate the same territories 150 years later.

I must also add for the umpteenth time that no native hispanic population was displaced by the annexation and this also helped legitimise american sovereignty over these territories.

See what I mean, Foxfyre?

This is the right way to legitimise american possession of all those former mexican provinces.

THERE’S NO NEED TO DENY HISTORICAL FACTS FOR THAT.

The umpteenth time? Perhaps you could provide a link to a credible source that recites the history as you see it. I'm drawing on a History minor that included a LOT of Mexican and Texas history, but admittedly it has been awhile so I'm willing to be re-educated provided you can show how your version is correct. You of course should be able to cite the immigration policy in the short period between the relatively short time that Mexico took the territory from Spain and then invited the Europeans and Americans to settle it.