Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsA Nation Of Colonists And Race Laws
A Nation Colonists Race Laws - Culture, Family, Travel, Consumer Reviews - Posted: 1st Dec, 2008 - 1:52pm
Posts: 10 - Views: 1254
Is the US really like South Africa? Racism in the USA.Post Date: 28th Nov, 2008 - 1:13am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
A Nation Of Colonists And Race Laws
A Nation of Colonists - and Race Laws
By Juan Santos
The original Europeans in the Americas were not immigrants, but colonists. And the US is not a nation of immigrants - it is a white colonial settler state, like South Africa under Apartheid, the former Rhodesia, Australia and Israel.
Ref. Source 7
Sponsored Links:
Laws Race Colonists Nation A
WOW...this is one twisted piece of diatribe with the hidden agenda that he accuses the US colonist/immigrants of having. There is so much that is incorrectly but yet factually presented in this article.
Just look at the third paragraph. The original immigrants were not immigrants but colonist. I have absolutely no problem with this statement, as it is true and even more importantly notice its past tense. Then he immediately switches to present tense and says that we are no different than the S. Africa under aparthied. WRONG! He presents it as fact though. Nice try! Are there things that we should be ashamed that happened in the past...you bet, but to say that the US is an aparthied state is a joke. If you want to compare the US to other British Colonizations, try somewhere between Canada and Australia, South Africa isnt even close!
Mr Santos should actually study all of US History and not just his favorite bits. If you read Mr Santos article, you probably come to the conclusion that all of the people sent to America were elite Colonist that were sent by the crown to invade, rape and pillage America. It might come as a surprise to some that the Province of Georgia was anything but a glorious colony. Its sole purpose was that of a penal colony. Actually, the British sent loads of criminals off to America and thought of them as basically a savage race... The very original settlers...yes...colonist. The majority of what came later....hmmmm....I dont think so!
Source 6
It is a good read for anyone that thinks that Britain sent their very best over here to make sure that they squeezed every penny from the land and stole as much as we could. I mean if that was the case...you think they would have sent a better caliber of people in their mind... Estimates have it that at minimum 1/4 of all emigrants sent to America from the Britain were criminals. They were sent to nearly every province and greatly focused in Georgia. Oh...and they did labor there. Yes, white men doing labor under the crown in a foreign land. Oh, and dont miss the fact that many of them were put into indentured servitude. THEY really dont sound like colonist living the good life, do they?
This was a good bit of history that I was never taught in school, so I thought it might be of interest to others. The shipping of criminals to America only stopped upon the successful separation between Britain and establishment of the United States. Thus ending the title of colonists, Mr Santos. At that point, the United States would be a very loosely held nation of states. You got to remember, it wasnt until the development of Federalism were the states truly united as one. I always find a bit of irony in the fact that the British loaded up America with criminals (especially political criminals) but were a bit shocked that the criminals couldnt be controlled from thousands of miles away.
S.Africa under aparthied and Australia had ties to the crown and thus still being able to be called a colonial state. Our ties were broken in the 18th century.
| QUOTE |
| It is just another place where white colonists arrived, seized the land, and dispossessed, exterminated or attempted to exclude the original "non-white" peoples - all of them. They did so at the point of a gun - by open terror and genocide, which was the precursor and the necessary pre-condition of European immigration. And, of course, they didn't only use guns and overt terror. Where "necessary," they operated by "law." |
This is true. It is a unfortunate fact. However, it makes it sound as though the white world was the only one that participated in what amount to barbarism in todays world. This is somewhat suggested by the author, due to the exclusion of other examples of forced slavery, servitude and land changing hands. Indian tribes actually would enslave members of rival tribes that they conquered in battle. This has been a pretty common practice among all that go to war...not just the white man. However, at this time, the white man was very successful. So yes, the statement above is correct, but missleading like the majority of the article.
| QUOTE |
| In the US, Native Americans were dispossessed, subjected to mass murder, and locked on separate, Apartheid-style "reservations." So it stands today. |
There are reservations. This is true...no argument here. However, to liken this to aparthied is a pretty far stretch. Of course, one shouldnt point out the irony of this as well. Again, Georgia was a location where the british force criminals to live. Wasnt this aparthied as well in the eyes of the author? Wasnt there aparthied committed against Irish and Scots galore? Of course not...they were white and happy in their indentured servitude... The giant leap from aparthied to what the US is today is simple as the author says. It simply doesnt compare and his analogy is way off. Aparthied stripped black of citizenship. Aparthied was made legal in 1948 (please note this year). Native Americans today have sovereignty over their lands. Yes, they were pushed into these reserves, but they were not stripped of all rights. The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act gave the Native Americans the right to govern their own lands. Take a look at the laws passed for aparthied:
| QUOTE |
| Wikipedia The principal "apartheid laws" were as follows:[12] An amendment to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 prohibited marriage between persons of different races. An amendment to the Immorality Act of 1950 made sexual relations with a person of a different race a criminal offence. The Population Registration Act of 1950 formalised racial classification and introduced an identity card for all persons over the age of eighteen, specifying their racial group. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. It made membership in the SACP punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. The Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956 prohibited disorderly gatherings. The Unlawful Organisations Act of 1960 outlawed certain organisation that were deemed threatening to the government. The Sabotage Act was passed 1962, the General Law Amendment Act in 1966, the Terrorism Act in 1967 and the Internal Security Act in 1976. The Group Areas Act, passed on 27 April 1950, partitioned the country into different areas, with different areas allocated to different racial groups. This law was the basis upon which political and social separation was constructed. The Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 created separate government structures for blacks. It was the first piece of legislation established to support the government's plan of separate development in the Bantustans. The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951 allowed the government to demolish black shackland slums. The Native Building Workers Act and Native Services Levy of 1951 forced white employers to pay for the construction of housing for black workers recognized as legal residents in 'white' cities. The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953 prohibited people of different races from using the same public amenities, such as restaurants, public swimming pools, and restrooms. The Bantu Education Act of 1953 crafted a separate system of education for African students under the Department of "Bantu" Education. The Bantu Urban Areas Act of 1954 curtailed black migration to cities. The Mines and Work Act of 1956 formalised racial discrimination in employment. The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act of 1958 entrenched the NP's policy of separate development and created a system of nominally independent "homelands" for black people. Instead of all Native delegate systems founded under the Natives Representative Act of 1936, schemes for "self-governing Bantu units" were proposed. These national units were to have substantial administrative powers which would be decentralised to each "Bantu" unit and which would ultimately have autonomy and the hope of self-government. These national units were identified as North-Sotho, South-Sotho, Tswana, Zulu, Swazi, Xhosa, Tsonga and Venda. In later years, the Xhosa national unit was broken further down into the Transkei and Ciskei. The Ndebele national unit was also added later after its "discovery" by the apartheid government. The government justified its plans on the basis that South Africa was made up of different "nations", asserting that "(the) government's policy is, therefore, not a policy of discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, but a policy of differentiation on the ground of nationhood, of different nations, granting to each self-determination within the borders of their homelands - hence this policy of separate development". The Bantu Investment Corporation Act of 1959 set up a mechanism to transfer capital to the homelands in order to create employment there. The Extension of University Education Act of 1959 created separate universities for blacks, coloureds and Indians. Under this act, existing universities were not permitted to enroll new black students. Fort Hare University in the Ciskei (now Eastern Cape) was to register only Xhosa-speaking students. Sotho, Tswana, Pedi and Venda speakers were placed at the newly-founded University College of the North at Turfloop, while the University College of Zululand was launched to serve Zulu scholars. Coloureds and Indians were to have their own establishments in the Cape and Natal respectively. The Physical Planning and Utilisation of Resources Act of 1967 allowed the government to stop industrial development in 'white' cites and redirect such development to homeland border areas. The Black Homeland Citizenship Act of 1970 marked a new phase in the Bantustan strategy. It changed the status of the black so that they were no longer citizens of South Africa, but became citizens of one of the ten autonomous territories. The aim was to ensure whites became the demographic majority within South Africa by having all ten Bantustans choose "independence". Not all the homelands chose to become self-governing. Those who did choose autonomy were the Transkei (1976), Bophuthatswana (1977), Venda (1979) and the Ciskei (1981). The Afrikaans Medium Decree of 1974 required the use of Afrikaans and English on an equal basis in high schools outside the homelands.[13] |
I am having trouble seeing the connection.
I do feely admit that the colonies took land from the Indians. I admit that once the colonies broke from England that they waged many wars against the Indians over land and resourses. I realize that the Indians lost and were as a poor concession given just a few areas of the land that once roamed. However, this was not aparthied. Today, over 50% of the Native Americans do not even live on reservations...they live in US cities. They are not attempted to be pushed back to the reserve as was done and specifically desired in aparthied.
| QUOTE |
| Africans were enslaved, and once "freed," they were subjected first to Jim Crow, then, when that proved no longer possible, Jim Crow was transformed into joblessness, the mass terror of mass incarceration and permanent Apartheid-style ghetto-ization. So it stands today. |
I had so little idea that the White House is about to undergo ghetto-ization.
According to Juan, the Mexican War allowed Mexico to retain only what the Americans didnt want. What I am always fascinated by is the total forgetfulness of the fact that Spain ruled you for nearly 3 centuries before Iturbide's rebels kicked them out of Mexico. They must have been pretty satisfactory landlords for you to forget about those 3 centuries of rule by a Spanish Crown.
The Mexican War goes to Texas and the problem that the Mexican Government actually created there. See there were very few to no Mexicans that wanted to live in the Northern Territories, that they allowed a few hundred Americans to settle in Texas to get better control of the border. Since the border wasnt controlled well, a LOT more settlers moved in and VERY QUICKLY became a majority. Since Mexico City was so far away and they really didnt care about the needs of the majority of those living in the Texas Territory, they became separatist. So let me get this straight...if you dont control your border you can lose your country? Fascinating!
Edited: Vincenzo on 28th Nov, 2008 - 10:26amA Nation Of Colonists And Race Laws Reviews Consumer & Travel Family Culture
According to Juan, the Mexican War allowed Mexico to retain only what the Americans didnt want. What I am always fascinated by is the total forgetfulness of the fact that Spain ruled you for nearly 3 centuries before Iturbide's rebels kicked them out of Mexico. They must have been pretty satisfactory landlords for you to forget about those 3 centuries of rule by a Spanish Crown.
The Mexican War goes to Texas and the problem that the Mexican Government actually created there. See there were very few to no Mexicans that wanted to live in the Northern Territories, that they allowed a few hundred Americans to settle in Texas to get better control of the border. Since the border wasnt controlled well, a LOT more settlers moved in and VERY QUICKLY became a majority. Since Mexico City was so far away and they really didnt care about the needs of the majority of those living in the Texas Territory, they became separatist. So let me get this straight...if you dont control your border you can lose your country? Fascinating! In yet other terms, when you have a group of people living in your country that are not citizens, they do not support the nation and can actually work against the nation.
Mr Santos also says the war was fought with overtly racist violence, but yet flogs the idea of manifest destiny as the reason. Manifest destiny had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with spreading America from one ocean to the other. Containing North America and Central America. No where in manifest destiny is there the goal of eradicating all other races. If it were truly Manifest Destiny, that included ALL of MEXICO and when the US controlled Mexico City during the War, they wouldnt have stopped until they ran out of Mexican Territory to take.
AHHHH...it is after this that Santos whips out his real agenda...HR4437. This is the Illegal Immigration Control Act! Dont you just bet that Mexico wished they had enough control over Texas back in 1840 to do the same thing...because if so, they wouldnt have lost TEXAS. Santos equates the Chinese Exclusion Act with HR4437. Santos would have you believe that the Chinese already in the US were exported. This is false. Actually, Chinese that were here were allowed to stay and granted multiple reentry permits. They were NOT made citizens but rather permanent residents.
Now he says that this is the same as HR4437. WRONGO! First off, the Chinese that came to the country did so legally. This is a key difference. HR4437 is dealing with those in the US illegally, kind of like the additional settlers to Texas that Mexico didnt OK that ended up causing a 2 wars (Mexican War and largely responsible for the Civil War). Those that are not here legally have options to get here legally. If they are not able to do this, they need to leave. That is the basis of the Act. It also has many provisions that if you are illegal and commit a crime, it is easy to deport you. Juan, there is nothing even close to this in the Chinese Exclusion Act. We just stopped allowing the Chinese into the US. Mexicans (a limited number) may still gain citizenship in the US each year. There has been no stoppage and Mexico supplies the #1 quantity of legal and illegal immigrants EACH YEAR! Your argument makes me wonder if you really wished that the US had take all of Mexico over in the Mexican War.
| QUOTE |
| Every group the US has sought to eliminate or exclude has been a people of color. The logic is simple. Allow entry or citizenship for those who can be "assimilated" into the colonists" culture - those who can become loyal colonists themselves - and exclude the "Other" - those who are the targets of colonialism - those whose land, cultures, bodies and souls must be sacrificed for the colonists to remain dominant and for their system to function. |
Tell this to a Irishman in 1850. I guess the signs "No Irish Allowed" was a common greeting of friendliness.
| QUOTE |
| So it remained until 1952. Until then the Supreme Court repeatedly determined exactly which migrants might be considered "free" and "white," as applicants of various ethnic backgrounds sought to become citizens. |
Another misleading statement. Yes, it was in 1952 that the last legislation created allowed the door open to all, but the door was OPENING way before this. Could I have gotten Mexican Citizenship in 1840? NO! How easy is it to get Mexican Citizenship today. Can anyone come...is it open and free for all? NO!
| QUOTE |
| Conquest of territory in wars of aggression is illegal under international law. The US occupation of most Native land and all of the occupied sections of Mexico is illegal. The presence of the conquering people, the usurpation of the land itself is illegal. The colonists themselves are illegal aliens. |
Mexico declared war on the US. Britain and France tried to talk them out of it, but they did it anyway. War of aggression? You lost...sorry. I wont even mention that that idea wasnt even in existance during the Mexican War, Juan. Dont get me wrong. The US, I am sure didnt mind the war. You should have kept your borders controlled and maybe it wouldnt have happened. OH the irony.
I just love how at the end of his article, he equates the Illegal Immigrant Act to Hitler and Balkans ethnic cleanzing. Yeah...there identicle Juan. Heck, why stop there...why not equate it to Roman Rule, The Crusades, Atilla the Hun, the Salem Witch Trials, etc...
You can choose to eat up Mr Santos basket of fabrication that would be the equivalent of a Dan Brown book mixing a few facts into a fantastic lie or go study it for yourself. Oh, and one last things...Mexico was a bunch of territories prior to the Mexican War. It wasnt until after the Mexican War did the territories join and form what is known today as a Mexican government of states/provinces.
Edited: Vincenzo on 28th Nov, 2008 - 12:32pmPost Date: 28th Nov, 2008 - 4:00pm / Post ID: #
Laws Race Colonists Nation A
All I can say is thanks Vincenzo you really detailed it all out. I disagreed with the statement due to the fact that America was pretty much founded by those who were escaping from rules in Britian, France and other countries. We formed the United States through a lot of hardship and toil and have keep ourself free since then. We do not have anything that resembles apartheid in my view of things.
A Nation Of Colonists And Race Laws
Sorry about the long counter to Mr Santos. However, it is people like him that are listened to because many just dont know their history and can be exploited. Plus, like Hitler, we gotta give those in bad situations someone to hate. Reading his web of few facts twisted into a wonderful lie that had little to do with his real agenda really struck a nerve. America has done some things in the past we probably look upon today as distasteful, but if you look at the span of time, America has lead the way on most social reforms and you would never have guessed that reading Mr Santos view. According to him...it has been aparthied since day one. I had no idea I was a white elitist keeping all other races down until I have the honor of reading Juan's thoughts. Edited: Vincenzo on 28th Nov, 2008 - 9:30pm
Post Date: 29th Nov, 2008 - 3:57pm / Post ID: #
A Nation Colonists Race Laws
Do not be sorry for that long counter. It is refreshing to read someone who has taken the time to prove that guy totally wrong. With him going off on a tangent that America is nothing but the white man keeping all others as slaves or second class citizens just shows his true character.
I agree that America is the great melting pot and while we have had a few things in our past that many may not be proud of we have improved. We are not holding anyone down and we offer a lot of opportunities for people to come over and live a better life than in their home countries.
Anyone who wants to try to put down this great nation by calling it Apartheid is missing out on a lot that it has to offer. IF he does not like this country then why does he still live here? My does he not leave and go live someplace else? Is he afraid that if he does he will not have the freedom to spout off someplace else? This is one of the things that makes this nation great. You can live here and enjoy the freedom of spouting off at anything you may disagree with. You and everyone around you have the same freedoms. This is why most do not want to leave the USA after they have experienced these freedoms.
A Nation Colonists Race Laws Culture Family Travel & Consumer Reviews
Yes it is the ability to speak freely regardless how insane the rant that separates the USA from other places. In cases when this happens the tactic used by Vincenzo is a must!
That is to point per point counter and prove why the person is misleading in their thoughts and actions. It is this ability of freedom that will help prevent a Hitler from rising within the walls.
Helping to keep the facts straight and placing the correct information out there will help educate the masses and prevent fools from being our leaders. Well minimize at least.
TOPIC: A Nation Of Colonists And Race Laws