AMERICA - PATHWAYS TO THE PRESENT
Download a PDF of America-Pathways to the Present, 2007 edition to share with others.
Revision 3 uploaded 12 Apr 2017. R3 has new addition on last page and expanded information on Japanese relocation camps on pages 12-14.
“. . .Most slaves (in Africa) had probably been captured in war, although many were kidnapped in slave raids carried out by rival ethnic groups. Africans’ concept of slavery differed from slavery as it developed in the Americas. In Africa, slaves became adopted members of the kinship group that enslaved them. They could marry into a lineage, even into the high ranks of society, and move out of their slave role. Children of slaves were not presumed to be born into slavery. Finally, slaves carried out a variety of roles, working as soldiers and administrators as well as laborers.”(1)
“. . . As time wore on, however, Europeans demanded more and more slaves. Those who resisted dealing in the human cargo became themselves the victims of bloody slave raids.”(2)
Excerpts of Travels in the Interior of Africa - Volume 2, by Mungo Park:
CHAPTER XXII - WAR AND SLAVERY
"SLAVERY: A state of subordination and certain inequalities of rank and condition are inevitable in every stage of civil society; but when the subordination is carried to so great a length that the persons and services of one part of the community are entirely at the disposal of another part, it may then be denominated a state of slavery, and in this condition of life a great body of the negro inhabitants of Africa have continued from the most early period of their history, with this aggravation, that their children are born to no other inheritance."
"The slaves in Africa, I suppose, are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen. They claim no reward for their services except food and clothing, and are treated with kindness or severity, according to the good or bad disposition of their masters. Custom, however, has established certain rules with regard to the treatment of slaves, which it is thought dishonourable to violate. Thus the domestic slaves, or such as are born in a man’s own house, are treated with more lenity than those which are purchased with money. The authority of the master over the domestic slave, as I have elsewhere observed, extends only to reasonable correction; for the master cannot sell his domestic, without having first brought him to a public trial before the chief men of the place."
"But these restrictions on the power of the master extend not to the care of prisoners taken in war, nor to that of slaves purchased with money. All these unfortunate beings are considered as strangers and foreigners, who have no right to the protection of the law, and may be treated with severity, or sold to a stranger, according to the pleasure of their owners. There are, indeed, regular markets, where slaves of this description are bought and sold, and the value of a slave, in the eye of an African purchaser, increases in proportion to his distance from his native kingdom: for when slaves are only a few days’ journey from the place of their nativity they frequently effect their escape; but when one or more kingdoms intervene, escape being more difficult, they are more readily reconciled to their situation. On this account the unhappy slave is frequently transferred from one dealer to another, until he has lost all hopes of returning to his native kingdom. The slaves which are purchased by the Europeans on the coast are chiefly of this description. A few of them are collected in the petty wars, hereafter to be described, which take place near the coast, but by far the greater number are brought down in large caravans from the inland countries, of which many are unknown, even by name, to the Europeans."
"The slaves which are thus brought from the interior may be divided into two distinct classes - first, such as were slaves from their birth, having been born of enslaved mothers; secondly, such as were born free, but who afterwards, by whatever means, became slaves. Those of the first description are by far the most numerous, for prisoners taken in war (at least such as are taken in open and declared war, when one kingdom avows hostilities against another) are generally of this description. The comparatively small proportion of free people to the enslaved throughout Africa has already been noticed: and it must be observed that men of free condition have many advantages over the slaves, even in war time. They are in general better armed, and well mounted, and can either fight or escape with some hopes of success; but the slaves, who have only their spears and bows, and of whom great numbers are loaded with baggage, become an easy prey. Thus when Mansong, king of Bambarra, made war upon Kaarta (as I have related in a former chapter), he took in one day nine hundred prisoners, of which number not more than seventy were freemen. This account I received from Daman Jumma, who had thirty slaves at Kemmoo, all of whom were made prisoners by Mansong."
"Again, when a freeman is taken prisoner his friends will sometimes ransom him by giving two slaves in exchange; but when a slave is taken, he has no hopes of such redemption. To these disadvantages, it is to be added that the slatees, who purchase slaves in the interior countries and carry them down to the coast for sale, constantly prefer such as have been in that condition of life from their infancy, well knowing that these have been accustomed to hunger and fatigue, and are better able to sustain the hardships of a long and painful journey than freemen; and on their reaching the coast, if no opportunity offers of selling them to advantage, they can easily be made to maintain themselves by their labour; neither are they so apt to attempt making their escape as those who have once tasted the blessings of freedom."
"Slaves of the second description generally become such by one or other of the following causes:- 1, captivity; 2, famine; 3, insolvency; 4, crimes. A freeman may, by the established customs of Africa, become a slave by being taken in war. War is of all others the most productive source, and was probably the origin, of slavery; for when one nation had taken from another a greater number of captives than could be exchanged on equal terms, it is natural to suppose that the conquerors, finding it inconvenient to maintain their prisoners, would compel them to labour - at first, perhaps, only for their own support, but afterwards to support their masters. Be this as it may, it is a known fact that prisoners of war in Africa are the slaves of the conquerors; and when the weak or unsuccessful warrior begs for mercy beneath the uplifted spear of his opponent, he gives up at the same time his claim to liberty, and purchases his life at the expense of his freedom."
"WAR: In a country divided into a thousand petty states, mostly independent and jealous of each other, where every freeman is accustomed to arms and fond of military achievements, where the youth, who has practised the bow and spear from his infancy, longs for nothing so much as an opportunity to display his valour, it is natural to imagine that wars frequently originate from very frivolous provocation. When one nation is more powerful than another, pretext is seldom wanting for commencing hostilities. Thus the war between Kajaaga and Kasson was occasioned by the detention of a fugitive slave; that between Bambarra and Kaarta by the loss of a few cattle. Other cases of the same nature perpetually occur in which the folly or mad ambition of their princes and the zeal of their religious enthusiasts give full employment to the scythe of desolation."
Download book at either site: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5305 http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/park/mungo/travels/complete.html
2. All evidence indicates that Europeans were able to get all the black slaves they needed from local Africans. This is a good example of being selective in reporting history. Only Europeans are mentioned in the slave trade, but the Arabs were the biggest slave traders - far surpassing Europeans. The Muslim Arab slave trade in Africa pre-dated the European African slave trade by a thousand years and continued for more than a century after the Europeans had abolished the practice.
In addition, a large number of slaves brought to the New World went to the Caribbean Islands or Central America.
Read: Slavery in the Arab World by Murray Gordon.
Page 18 - Jamestown settlement(6)
Page 31 - Tensions with the French and Native Americans
“The colonists’ desire for more land raised tensions between the new settlers and those groups who already lived on the land - the French(8) and the Indians. In the Ohio and Susquehanna River valleys, Native American groups, including the Delaware, the Shawnee, and the Huron, were moving west, too. As white settlers migrated into Native American territory, they forced the local Indians to relocate into lands already occupied by other Native American groups.”(9)
8. The authors are wrongly lumping the French and the Indians together. The French were not Indians. They were new arrivals in the New World like all the other Europeans. The French had their own wars with the Indians and they also attacked English towns in the New World.
For instance, in 1685, Jacques-René de Brisay de Denonville took control of New France. Although France and England were at peace, in June 1687, French troops attacked and captured the English fur trading posts on Hudson Bay. This attack was a factor in France and England going to war in 1688.
Denonville then lulled 50 chiefs of the Iroquois Confederacy to a meeting to arrange a truce between the French and Iroquois. But Denonville had them chained and shipped to Marseilles, France, to be used as galley slaves.
In 1687, Denonville launched a war against the Seneca Indian Tribes. He landed French troops at Irondequoit Bay, destroying many of its villages deep in Seneca territory. The Seneca fled south to the Susquehanna River.
9. This textbook wants you to believe that Indian tribes went to war with each other because of white settlers moving west and forcing local tribes to compete with other tribes for land. The fact is Native American tribes went to war with each other long before the white man arrived. Some Indian tribes were exterminated by other tribes and other Indians were run off their land by other Indian tribes. When white settlers went to war with Native American tribes, it suddenly became an unforgiveable crime.
It must also be noted that the Spanish conquerers took land from the Indians, but they are never condemned for it. Neither does this book have any comments from Indians critical of the Spanish taking over and forcing them into the Encomienda system on land they used to own!
Page 115 - African American Worship
“African Americans sometimes felt unwelcome in white-dominated churches. The tensions between whites and blacks increased as African Americans became more assertive about sharing in democratic liberty.”(10)
10. It’s true that African Americans felt unwelcome in some white churches, but this sentence is misleading. This sentence would make it appear that when blacks show up at a church, then the church must change to suit them or else the whites are racist. That’s not how it works. When you join a church it is presumably because you like going there. If you don’t like the format, worship style, etc., of a church, change churches or start your own. Blacks started their own churches.
The leading black evangelist of colonial America, Rev. Richard Allen, expressed a desire for a separate black church in 1786, shortly after he arrived at St. George’s Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. In 1816, Allen was a leader in forming the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), the first fully independent black denomination in the United States and was elected their first bishop.
The Gospel of Christ never intended churches to be segregated, but blacks and whites became segregated in the late 1700s for the same reasons they are segregated today - people choose churches where they feel comfortable and has members they can relate to. Culture is really the dividing line, though people change churches for all sorts of reasons. Today, over 2 centuries after America’s founding and a half century of civil rights legislation "Ninety percent of African-American Christians worship in all-black churches. Ninety percent of white American Christians worship in all-white churches," according to Chris Rice, coauthor of More Than Equals: Racial Healing for the Sake of the Gospel.(A)
Page 136 - War with Mexico
“Even if the United States could persuade Mexico to accept the annexation (of Texas), a dispute about the southern boundary of Texas remained an explosive issue. The United States claimed that the Rio Grande was the official American-Mexican border. Mexico claimed that the Nueces River, located quite a few miles farther north, was the border.”(11)
“Polk, though wanted much more from Mexico than just Texas. Polk had dreams of acquiring the entire territory stretching from Texas to the Pacific.(12) He sent a representative to Mexico City in November 1845 with an offer to buy New Mexico and California. The Mexican government refused to meet with the representative.”(13)
“Polk then ordered more than 3,000 American troops under General Zachary Taylor into the disputed area of southern Texas.(14) Mexican troops engaged in a skirmish with Taylor’s forces in late April 1846.(15) Expressing outrage at the loss of “American blood on American soil,” Polk pushed for a declaration of war.”
11. The Rio Grande River became the border on May 14, 1836, when Santa Anna, the head of Mexico’s government, signed the Treaties of Velasco, which resulted in Texas becoming an independent nation. Santa Anna had been captured by the Texas Army after they crushed the Mexican Army at the battle of San Jacinto. He was treated with tremendous respect as a prisoner and didn’t have to sign anything.
The war started when Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande River and ambushed US forces. Mexico’s claim that this attack was over a boundary dispute is not true. Mexico NEVER said they merely wanted to conquer the land up to the Nueces River. Polk was aware of this Mexican scam. If Mexico wanted the boundary to be the Nueces, they had 10 years to bring it up with Texas, and later the US and negotiate a deal. But the issue was really not about the border. Mexico was NEVER going to resolve the border impasse as that would be an admission that Texas was separate from Mexico. Mexico intended to conquer Texas and reclaim their former province.
Most people don't know this, but Texas was NOT the first state to secede from Mexico. Because of the dysfunctional state of Mexican politics - and only 2 years after independence, five states in central America declared themselves independent from Mexico - Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Central Americans chafed at Mexican rule, and there were several battles with Mexican forces. On July 1, 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formally established in Guatemala City. Like leaders in Mexico, they thought they would have a prosperous future, but constant infighting and wars resulted in the Union falling apart in 1838. The five provinces became independent nations. So why hasn’t Mexico made an issue out of this over the past 190 years? Is it because they are fellow Spanish, whereas the northern territories came under control of those evil Anglo Americans? Just wondering.
12. Although the US wanted to buy this land, desiring to buy something does not prove that you intend to steal it and is not proof you intend to start a war over it. The US had every reason to believe Mexico would sell this land as they were on the verge of bankruptcy with a staggering national debt, had scarcely any citizens on the land and in fact had very little control over the area. Had Mexico not started a war with the US, Mexico wouldn’t have lost the southwest US, or if they did, there could be no denying that the US stole it.
Polk had every reason to seek a diplomatic solution with Mexico. The US Army was untested against a conventional army. The last time the US Army faced off against a regular Army was the War of 1812, when they were routed by the British. Why would Polk fight a country with an untried army far from home over unfamiliar territory? He risked blundering into a stalemate like that which France faced in trying to set up Maximilian as emperor of Mexico during the 1860s.
The fact is the US didn’t have to go to war to acquire California or New Mexico. The US had thousands of immigrants moving west each year. Within a few years, California would have had a heavy majority of Americans and New Mexico would only be a few years behind. So why go to war, if population growth could accomplish the same thing without all the bloodshed of a war? In addition, many Mexicans in California and New Mexico favored being annexed by the US because they realized their own government was dysfunctional.
13. The Mexican president, Herrera, was a man who wanted peace between the US and Mexico. He REQUESTED that the US send a representative (John Slidell) to Mexico City in the hopes that all the differences between the two countries could be resolved. By the time Slidell got there, Herrera was about to be overthrown by the war mongers, led by General Mariano Paredes, whose sole objective was to start a war with the US. Hererra refused to meet with Slidell because he was trying to save his government from being overthrown, but it didn’t help. Paredes overthrew Herrera in January, 1846 and began planning to invade Texas.
14. This land was not in dispute. The border was the Rio Grande River. If the border had been changed to the Nueces River at some point, it wouldn’t have changed anything. Mexico was intent on conquering Texas regardless of which river was the border. Historical revisionists have said that the US intended to provoke a war with Mexico by stationing troops on the north side of the Rio Grande River. This is bogus reasoning and ignores facts. Who was provoking who? How could the US be responsible for starting a war with a country that had repeatedly declared war on the US, refused to negotiate, put an invasion force on the border and declared they would conquer Texas again? Polk had a moral obligation to defend Texas from Mexico.
15. In a letter dated Apr 18, 1846, Paredes wrote to General Arista “It is indispensable that hostilities begin, yourself taking the initiative.” On April 25, 1846, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed American troops. Mexico got the war they had long talked about starting.
Page 137 - Mexican-American War Peace Treaty
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the war. Under its harsh terms,(16) Mexico gave up its claim to Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as the southern border of Texas. Mexico also gave up New Mexico and California, which together made of more than two fifths of its territory. The United States paid Mexico $15 million.”
“In 1853, Mexico sold 30,000 square miles of what is now southern New Mexico and Arizona to the United States for $10 million.”(17)
16. Mexico didn’t leave the US any choice but to be harsh. Mexico brought the heavy hand of justice down on themselves. Because of Mexico’s refusal to negotiate on anything, war was the ONLY answer. So the real issue today is this: Even if Mexico is 100% to blame for starting the war - which they are - did the US have the right to take almost half of Mexico’s territory? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES!! Here’s why:
Mexico was looking for an excuse to start this war because they were certain they could defeat the US. But Mexico lost every major battle. To have beaten Mexico as badly as we did, conquered most of their country including the capital city, and then told them they must accept Texas as part of the US, which it already was, now lets move on? This would have been an unforgivable disgrace to our country, the men who died and the rest who went through hell to attain victory.
Now put yourself in Mexico’s shoes. Your army has been repeatedly defeated, nearly the entire country has been conquered, and the consequences are - nothing!! Just be nice and don’t threaten Texas again! In a machismo society like Mexico, would they sit back and say ‘OK.’ Or would Mexico think we Americans are unbelievably gullible. Mexico would hold Americans in even greater contempt and disrespect for conquering their country and not making them pay a price for their warmongering. Would this teach them not to do it again? Or would they realize, very quickly, that there is no price to pay for aggression? We gave Mexico our best shot. Now they know our game plan. What could we do the next time that would be worse?
If the US could change history, what could we change so Mexico would love us today? If we only kept Texas and didn‘t take California and New Mexico, would Mexico would still hate us for keeping Texas? Absolutely yes, they would. Mexico should have accepted the lose of Texas forever just like they accepted the lose of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica forever. Losing the southwest US was the consequences of going to war against the US. Although many Mexicans consider the southwest US stolen Mexican land, this is NOT TRUE. This land is historically Indian land. The Spanish stole it from the Indians.
The reality is that the US was far more generous to Mexico then they needed to be. Mexico demanded $30 million for the land we already had conquered. We gave them $15 million and the US assumed Mexican debts of $3.25 million owed to American citizens.
The fact that such a small American Army was able to control a country of 7 million people proves that a lot of Mexicans were not that interested in fighting the “hated” Americans and stayed home. If all of Mexico had mobilized to defend the country, an army of over a quarter million men could have easily been raised. The US controlled the capital city, the main port of Veracruz, many major cities and ports, arsenals, forts and even the mines in Mexico. The state of Yucatan had refused to send any men to fight the Americans. Most of the native Americans living under Mexican rule felt no desire to defend Mexico. By the end of the war, Mexico only had 8,109 men left in their army and the country was broke. The US could continue to occupy these cities indefinitely because the vast majority of the local population were content to live under US occupation. The truth is the average Mexican had it better living under the US military then under their own corrupt government.
Most Mexicans believe that if they had kept ownership of the land north of the Rio Grande - Texas, California and New Mexico, these areas would be economically prosperous like they are now. This is wishful - even delusional thinking. These areas became prosperous because they belong to the US, not Mexico. Had these lands stayed under the control of Mexico, they would not have helped Mexico prosper. This part of Mexico would be as dysfunctional as the rest of Mexico. All that would change is that constant revolutions, widespread poverty, a disastrous economic system, bad health care, poor education, political turmoil and murderous drug cartels would be in a country twice as large as it is now. Even more illegal immigrants from Mexico would be coming into our considerably smaller country for jobs.
17. Mexico was broke again due to Santa Anna’s incompetence, and needed cash, so Mexico sold more of it’s land to the US.
Page 137 - Indians and Western Migration
“Until the Mexican War, the United States had proclaimed all land west of the 95th meridian, or line of longitude, to be Indian Country. The migration of thousand of settlers into Indian Country, therefore, posed a problem. By the 1850s, the government increasingly saw the answer to that problem in the creation of reservations, or areas that the government sets aside for Native Americans who have lost their homelands. Many Native Americans refused to be herded onto reservations and fought to preserve their way of life.”(18)
18. Explain why it was okay for Indian tribes to run other tribes off their land, but an unforgivable crime when the white man did it. Just wondering.
Page 241 - The Standard Oil Trust
“The new ease of attaining oil and oil’s growing usefulness excited many wealthy businessmen, including John D. Rockefeller. He had become rich from a grain and meat partnership during the Civil War, and he saw the oil business as a way to become even richer.(19) In 1863, Rockefeller built an oil refinery near Cleveland, Ohio. The refinery expanded rapidly.”
19. This comment is a cheap shot. So what should Rockefeller have done? Ignore a great business opportunity? If you saw a great opportunity to make money, would you pass it up and tell someone else so they could go for this opportunity? The commercial oil business was then in its infancy. Whale oil had become too expensive for the general public, and an alternative was desperately needed. In 1863, Rockefeller and a partner, Maurice Clark, built an oil refinery in Cleveland which helped the Union win the Civil War. In February 1865, Rockefeller bought out Clark and established the firm of Rockefeller & Andrews, the forerunner to Standard Oil Company. Rockefeller took advantage of post Civil War prosperity and the great expansion westward fostered by the growth of railroads and an oil-fueled economy. He borrowed heavily, reinvested profits and adapted rapidly to changing markets.
Rockefeller made continuous improvements in the efficiency of his operations, and bought rivals out. Standard Oil gradually gained almost complete control of oil refining and marketing in the United States. He saw himself as the industry’s savior, absorbing the weak and making the industry as a whole stronger, more efficient, and more competitive. Standard Oil made its products affordable to the average household. The price of kerosene dropped by nearly 80% over the life of the company. It developed over 300 oil-based products from tar to paint to Vaseline petroleum jelly to chewing gum.
The invention of the light bulb gradually began to erode the dominance of kerosene for lighting. But Standard Oil adapted, expanding into natural gas production in the U.S. and then into gasoline for automobiles, which until then had been considered a waste product.
In 1904, publication of The History of the Standard Oil Company, by Ida Tarbell, documented the company’s espionage, price wars and heavy-handed marketing tactics. It is also certainly true that he could have given his workers better pay. Despite this criticism, Rockefeller could boast that he had created jobs for over 100,000 Americans and ran one of the most efficient business operations in the world.
Rockefeller created foundations which pioneered the development of medical research that were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever.
From his very first paycheck, Rockefeller tithed ten percent of his earnings to his church. His church was later affiliated with the Northern Baptist Convention, which formed from American Baptists in the North with ties to their historic missions to establish schools and colleges for freedmen in the South after the American Civil War. As a devoted Northern Baptist, he supported many church-based institutions. Rockefeller was an abolitionist who voted for Abraham Lincoln and supported the then new Republican Party.
Rockefeller believed in the Efficiency Movement, arguing that: "To help an inefficient, ill-located, unnecessary school is a waste... it is highly probable that enough money has been squandered on unwise educational projects to have built up a national system of higher education adequate to our needs, if the money had been properly directed to that end."
In 1884, Rockefeller provided major funding for a college in Atlanta for African-American women, which became Spelman College (named for Rockefeller's in-laws who were ardent abolitionists before the Civil War). Rockefeller also gave considerable donations to Denison University and other Baptist colleges.
Rockefeller was also the founder of both the University of Chicago and Rockefeller University and funded the establishment of Central Philippine University in the Philippines.
Rockefeller adhered to total abstinence from alcohol and tobacco throughout his life.
Page 513 to 559 - The Depression starts and ends(20)
20. You would think the whole country was in ruins. As bad as things were for many people, 75 to 85 percent of the American work force was employed during the depression.
Page 517 -
“African Americans, Hispanics, and in the West, Asian Americans all suffered as white laborers began to demand the low-paying jobs typically filled by these minorities. Hispanics and Asian Americans lost not only their jobs but also their country. Thousands were deported - even those born in the United States.(21) Black unemployment soared - about 56 percent of black Americans were out of work in 1932. Some white citizens declared openly that blacks had no right to jobs if whites were out of work.”(22)
“The justice system often ignored the rights of minority Americans. In March 1931, near Scottsboro, Alabama, nine black youths who had been riding the rails were arrested and accused of raping two white women on a train.(23) Without being given the chance to hire a defense lawyer, eight of the nine were quickly convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to die.”
“The case of the “Scottsboro boys” was taken up, and sometimes exploited, by northern groups, most notably the communist Party. The party helped supply legal defense and organized demonstrations, which, after many years, helped overturn the convictions, but four of the “boys’ spent many years in jail.”(24)
21. This is another issue in which this textbook unfairly bashes America, giving only one side of the story.
First, authorities were only after deportable aliens.(1) Mexicans were not just rounded up and shipped back to Mexico. In most cases, there WAS due process. For instance, in the El Monte Raid, 300 people were stopped and questioned, with only 13 jailed, 12 being Mexican.(2) In the LA city plaza raid in Feb. 1931, about 400 people were questioned about their immigration status. Only 17 were detained, 11 being Mexican.(3) Nine of the 11 Mexicans were later released.(4) Most of the US citizens who were deported were children born in the US - which automatically makes them citizens - to parents who were non-citizens or here illegally. Obviously, if the parents were deported they are going to take their children with them. Mexicans who were being deported were taken care of by US authorities. No one went hungry or lacked medical attention.(5) Claims of Mexicans being abused in the US were lies told by the Mexican media, which has been bashing America since the 1830s.(6) Mexico actually praised the repatriation efforts in Los Angeles.(7)
Second, there is nothing immoral, criminal or racist with evicting illegals from your country. It happens in every country in the world, including Mexico. Since at least the 1850s, non-citizens - whether German, Irish, Italian, Mexican, etc., etc., were replaced with citizens during economic downtimes. Most Mexicans came to the US for a job, NOT to become a citizen. It is incredibly arrogant to come to America solely to make a living, send a lot of your money out of the country and THEN be offended when you are deported so citizens can take your job. Deporting non-citizens was not an unthinkable idea when 15 to 25% of Americans were unemployed.
Third, it was NOT hispanics in general, it was mostly Mexicans who were deported, because - even in the 1930s - it was mostly Mexicans who were here illegally. When the Mexican Revolution of 1910 broke out, over 500,000 Mexicans entered the US to escape the violence. Because the border at this time was seldom patrolled, Mexicans entered the US at will, most illegally. After 1917, a higher head tax and literacy requirement imposed for entry prompted more people to enter illegally.(8) It was this huge increase in illegal immigration into the southwest US that caused Congress to establish the US Border Patrol in 1924.
Many Mexicans never applied for citizenship, because most intended to eventually return to Mexico after making enough money in the US.(9) American officials in the southwest US were well aware of this fact. It is estimated that about one-half of those immigrants who entered the United States from 1900 to 1930 freely returned to Mexico.(10) Between 1917 and 1929, Mexican migrants in the United States sent over $10 million to relatives in their home country.(11) The Mexican Consulate sponsored campaigns to repatriate Mexicans, promising their expenses would be paid and some would even get a job in Mexico.
Fourth, the number of Mexicans deported has been greatly exaggerated. Some claim 2 million were deported but this is mathematically impossible. In 1930, the U.S. Census counted 1.42 million people of Mexican ancestry, with 805,535 born in the U.S.(12) There were 1.225 million people of Mexican ancestry in the 4 states bordering Mexico.(13) Critics claim the 1930 census under counted Mexicans living in the US, but the two million figure is still not possible. The most reliable source has about 500,000 people sent back to Mexico. This data comes from the "Departmento de Migracion de Mexico" or “Mexican Migration Service,” which was said to be a reliable source since the Mexican government had many ports along the border in which Mexicans were required to register and could do so free of charge.(14) A 1936 dispatch from the U.S. Consulate General in Mexico City says 345,839 people went to Mexico from 1930 to 1935, with 1931 as the peak year.(13) Many Mexicans were deported who were on public assistance.
Ironically, this was a reversal of what Mexico did to many US citizens living in Mexican California in 1840, when Mexico arrested Americans, even those with valid visas and hauled them off to jail in chains to Mexico City. They never received any compensation for their property losses.(15)
Some historians believe that some Americans didn’t accept Mexican Americans as “real” Americans. This was probably true in some cases. However, it is also true that many Mexican Americans don’t consider themselves “Americans,” rather Mexicans with American citizenship living in America. A large percentage of Mexican-Americans have Dual citizenship.
Some believe this was a xenophobic campaign against Mexicans. We should keep in mind that only immigrants from Spain were allowed into New Spain (later Mexico) for 300 years. THAT is xenophobia.
22. If you are going to make an explosive charge like this, you better say who said it, which this book does not. This is extremely irresponsible writing.
23. This sentence is too vague and makes it appear that authorities were just looking for blacks to pin a rape on. Here’s is how the whole incident got started.
During the depression, unemployed people often rode the trains to different towns looking for work. On this train, there were 9 blacks, several white males and 2 white women. A fight broke out between the blacks and the white males. The white males lost and were thrown off the train. They reported this to the sheriff who organized a posse and stoped the train at Paint Rock, Alabama and found the blacks along with the two white girls who then said they had been raped by the blacks. One of the blacks had a gun.
The blacks were then arrested and taken to the Scottsboro, Alabama jail where a lynch mob soon formed in front of the jail. The white sheriff, Matt Wann, stood in front of the jail and said he would kill the first person to come through his door. He then called the Governor, Benjamin Miller, who called in the National Guard to protect the jail. The guardsmen then brought the 9 blacks unharmed to Gadsden, Alabama for trial. The trials were a sham.
24. The Textbook leaves out important information. One of the white women, Ruby Bates, recanted at the second trial. At the time she accused the black men of raping her, Bates was seventeen years old. She lived, like her train companion, Victoria Price, in a poor neighborhood in Huntsville, Alabama, where blacks and whites played together, drank together, and sometimes slept together. Bates had once been arrested for hugging a black man in public. After the second trial, Bates spoke at public rallies in defense of the “Scottsboro boys.”
Victoria Price maintained her claim of being raped for the rest of her life. In 1934 lawyers for the International Labor Defense, the legal arm for the Communist Party USA, tried to bribe her to change her testimony, but she revealed the plot to the police. Price died in 1983.
Of the “Scottsboro boys”, Haywood Patterson was convicted of rape and sentenced to 75 years. He escaped in 1948 and fled to Michigan. After police found him, Michigan refused Alabama’s extradition request. Later, he was arrested for stabbing a man to death in a bar fight and convicted of manslaughter. Patterson died of cancer in prison in 1952, after serving one year.
Ozie Powell, while being taken to Birmingham Prison in 1936, got into an argument with an officer who then hit Powell in the head. Powell pulled a pocket knife and slit the officer’s throat. The other officer shot Powell in the face, and he suffered permanent brain damage. Powell pled guilty to assaulting the deputy and was sentenced to 20 years. Powell was released from prison in 1946.
After doing 6 years in prison, Roy Wright married and joined the Merchant Marine. After Wright came back from a lengthy time at sea in 1959, he thought his wife had been unfaithful. He shot and killed her before turning the gun on himself.
Clarence Norris escaped parole and went into hiding in 1946. He was pardoned by George Wallace in 1976 after he was found. Norris, the last surviving defendant, died in 1989.
“Indeed, government programs did mean the difference between survival and starvation for millions of Americans.”(25)
25. This is not true. There was no mass starvation. Private charities prevented anybody from starving for years until FDR’s New Deal programs provided public works jobs for many of the unemployed.
Thanks to American ingenuity, we broke the Japanese code in late 1940. Intercepts indicated the existence of a Japanese spy ring on the west coast of the U.S.(A)
Then the attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in a bizarre incident on the Hawaiian Island of Niihau. A Japanese fighter, damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor, crash landed on Niihau. There were only about 130 people on the island, 3 of Japanese descent. All three eventually sided with the Japanese fighter pilot and tried to take the islanders prisoner. During the confrontation, the Japanese pilot was killed and one of the ethnic Japanese committed suicide.(B)
In the official Navy report on the Niihau incident, dated January 26, 1942, its author, Navy Lieutenant C. B. Baldwin, wrote, "The fact that the two Niihau Japanese who had previously shown no anti-American tendencies went to the aid of the pilot when Japanese domination of the island seemed possible, indicate[s] [the] likelihood that Japanese residents previously believed loyal to the United States may aid Japan if further Japanese attacks appear successful."(D]
This incident provoked great fear that some Japanese Americans would be loyal to Japan if they had to choose. This incident, combined with the intercepts(E) had a profound effect on FDR issuing the Relocation Order in February 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." Another factor in FDR’s decision was his close call with an anarchist bombing in June, 1919.(F)
Japanese Americans were given time to voluntarily move out of the exclusion zone and approximately 5,000 did so before the March 1942 deadline. About 110,000 people of Japanese descent were then interned in relocation camps in the interior of the country.
The Japanese were only evacuated from the West Coast - not from anywhere else in the U.S. Why? Because of the possibility of a Japanese invasion along the West Coast, or more likely, Japanese subs could land a commando team along the West Coast and join up with local Japanese who were loyal to Japan. Nazi subs landed two sabotage teams along the east coast - in Florida and New York in June 1942.(G) All 8 men were captured with six being executed.
Over the next two years, nearly a quarter of the internees left the camps to live and work elsewhere in the United States, outside the exclusion zone. Eventually, some were authorized to return to their hometowns in the exclusion zone under supervision of a sponsoring American family or agency whose loyalty had been assured.(H) Japanese of college age were permitted to leave the camps to attend nearby institutions willing to accept students of Japanese ancestry. By December 31, 1943, there were 2,263 students enrolled.(H)
On Dec. 17, 1944, with Japan’s defeat in sight, U.S. General Henry C. Pratt issued Public Proclamation No. 21, declaring that Japanese American "evacuees" from the West Coast could return to their homes, effective January 2, 1945.(I) The problem was that some had no where to go.
This information is not intended to justify FDR’s Relocation Order, which punished the innocent with the guilty, but gives us greater understanding why the Relocation Order was issued. After the attack on Pearl Harbor and with the Allies losing everywhere, people were in panic mode and not taking any chances.
The internment of Japanese Americans has sometimes been compared to the persecutions of other ethnic minorities in the World War II era but there is no comparison. An estimated 500,000 Volga Germans were rounded up and deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan by Stalin, never to return, with many of them dying en route. In 1944, the Red Army rounded up about 500,000 Chechens and Ingushes for relocation. A third of this population perished in the first year from starvation, cold, and disease.(H)
Three years after the start of World War One and with millions dead, the Russian government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks (Communists) in November, 1917. The Bolsheviks decided to abandon their allies and quit the war with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. On March 3, 1918, the Communists signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany which was a disaster for the Allied war effort. The Bolshevik’s surrender drastically changed the military/political situation, putting the western Alliance in near panic. The treaty gave Germany control of agricultural and mineral resources in the Ukraine and oil from the Caucasus - which they quickly began shipping to Germany. Germany had one million men in Russia and they were now free to transfer a large number of its troops to France to fight the British, French and newly arriving American forces. The US declared war on Germany in April 1917 but US forces had only begun arriving. Several German divisions had already been transfered to France by the end of 1917, before the treaty had even been signed. An offensive by Germany in France in March 1918, produced impressive gains - gains blamed on Russia for allowing Germany to shift troops to France. In April 1918, a division of German troops had landed in Finland, creating fears they might try to capture the strategic ports of Murmansk, Archangel or capture the Murmansk-Petrograd railroad.
In addition, the Bolsheviks went out of their way to make enemies of the rest of the free world. Indeed, the Bolsheviks were not even considered the legitimate government of Russia. On Jan 19, 1918, Lenin sent in armed Bolshevik troops and forcibly dispersed the popularly elected Constituent Assembly after communist candidates won less then 25% of the seats. A month later the Bolsheviks informed the rest of the world they would not pay back the money loaned to Russia. They owed the US $187 million and other countries millions more. In July 1918, the Bolsheviks executed the Tsar and his wife - and then their 5 children. The Bolsheviks were viewed by the Western democracies as a bunch of thugs and murderers - which is what they were. Also in July, 1918, the last independent newspaper was shut down by Lenin.(A) From here on, only propaganda from the Bolsheviks was allowed to be printed.
The Bolsheviks then turned on their faithful allies, the Czech Legion. This 60,000 man Army was made up of Czech and Slovak nationals who were fighting the Germans and Austro-Hungarian Empire alongside the Russian Army. The Russian government had promised that they would support the creation of a national homeland for them out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire when the allies won the war. After Russia surrendered, the Czech Legion was promised safe passage out of Russia, but Leon Trotsky, under pressure from the Germans, ordered the disarming and arrest of the Czechoslovak Legion. The Czechs vowed to resist all attempts to arrest them. Stalin then agreed to allow the Czechs to leave Russia via Vladivostok. In May 1918 the Bolsheviks initiated a confrontation with the Czechs which turned into full scale war. The Czech Army quickly conquered all major cities in Siberia east of the Ural Mountains all the way to Vladivostok, often with the help of thousands of Russians who feared Communism.
The success of the Czech Legion energized the Allies and allowed them to consider new strategies to defeat Germany. The Bolsheviks were now considered the enemy of the allies and intervention in Russia was now considered necessary for 2 reasons: 1) Help the Czech Legion and other anti-communist forces to overthrow the Bolsheviks and rebuild the Russian Front. This would keep one MILLION German troops tied down in Russia long enough so the US Army could get 4 million soldiers to France and win the war for the Allies. 2) Prevent huge quantities of war material stockpiled in Russian ports from falling into German or Bolshevik hands. Since Russia surrendered, they no longer needed these supplies. The allies feared the Bolsheviks would use this material against their own people or else the Germans would end up getting it. This had to be prevented at all costs.
Britain and France had lost over 2 MILLION men in the war and the allies were not going to allow the Bolshevik surrender to Germany to jeopardize the outcome of the war. Some way had to be found to keep German troops in Russia. They took matters into their own hands.
The Allies landed in Russia at three locations: Siberia (Vladivostok) and North Russia - Archangel and Murmansk. This was a multinational deployment.
Britain took the lead, landing small forces in Murmansk in April 1918 with the bulk of the allied troops arriving in Murmansk and Archangel in August. Britain had 18,400 troops, the US 5,100, Canada and France about 1,000 each with small units from Australia and Serbia. All forces were under British command. This force immediately engaged the Bolshevik army and advanced rapidly. This advance played a definite role in keeping the bulk of German forces in Russia - the objective of the mission. After advancing hundreds of miles, lines were stretched too thin and the force went into defensive positions in October 1918. It’s ironic that the Germans and Russians were at peace with each other, even though Germany still controlled parts of Russia and over 2 MILLION Russian troops had been killed by Germany during the war. Yet the Bolsheviks were eager to attack their former allies in the war.
Thanks to the US Army, Germany was forced to surrender on November 11, 1918, and there was no longer a need to be in Russia. But due to the brutal Russian winter, troops could not be withdrawn til spring. The Bolsheviks launched winter counterattacks against the allies with heavy casualties on both sides. The allies tried to turn the war over to the anti-Bolshevik forces, but they were plagued by mutinies and desertion. The US withdrew its troops by the end of June 1919. Hundreds of Russians wept and said “God bless You” in Russian as the troop transports pulled away.(B) The British withdrew on Sep 20, 1919. About 17,000 Russian civilians - fearful of communism - were also evacuated on British ships.
In conclusion, if there had been no war in Europe, there would have been no intervention in Russia. Had the Bolsheviks (Communists) not quit the war, putting the outcome in mortal peril, there would have no need to go into Russia. This intervention was caused by the actions of the Bolsheviks.
33. The nonaggression pact between Hitler and Stalin was nothing more then a blueprint for conquering and dividing up Eastern Europe. The fact that Hitler broke the treaty doesn’t change the fact that Stalin was as evil and as much of an imperialist as Hitler. Another often forgotten fact is the Soviet Union signed the Neutrality Pact with the Empire of Japan in April 1941. The Soviet Union had taken control of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and attacked Finland. Stalin had starved millions of his own people to death during the 1930s. Stalin killed as many Russians as the Germans did when they invaded Russia.
34. Another example of the authors accepting a claim from Stalin and reporting it as fact. First, the US was fighting a war on two fronts - Japan and Germany - and US forces were divided and inexperienced. The Allies opened a second front against Germany by landing in North Africa on 8 November 1942. The US and its allies destroyed the German Army in North Africa by May, 1943. The Allies invaded Sicily on July, 1943 and conquered the island in just over a month. This victory toppled Italian dictator Benito Mussolini from power and opened the way to the Allied invasion of Italy. All of these actions helped Stalin.
The Allies invaded France as soon as they were able. To have attempted the invasion earlier then June 6, 1944 would have been a colossal strategic blunder by General Eisenhower and would likely have resulted in defeat and prolonged the war in Europe. Stalin knew all this. Eisenhower refused to invade until everything was ready and the Allies had a strong chance of success. Thousands of Americans owe their life to Eisenhower’s refusal to be bullied by Stalin.
Second, the Soviets were as imperialistic as Hitler. In fact, World War II in Europe was started jointly by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939. Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were divided into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence." As a result, the Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30, 1939 and forced Finland to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940. The Soviet Union then took control of the small countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940. In September 1939, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany invaded Poland. The Soviets took control of the eastern part of the country.
CORRECTIONS - OMISSION
On May 1, 1919, 36 package bombs were found in the mail at the General Post Office in New York City. Some of the intended targets were Postmaster General Burleson, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, New York Mayor Hylan, New York City Police commissioner Enright and Governor Sproul of Pennsylvania.
On June 2, 1919, explosions occurred in 8 different cities at the same hour which targeted public officials, judges and businessmen. One of the targets was US Attorney General Alexander Palmer. The bomb went off prematurely, killing both bombers. Future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then Secretary of the Navy under Woodrow Wilson, who lived across the street called the police.
Another target was Judge Albert Hayden, whose home was wrecked by a bomb. New York City Judge C. C. Nott’s home was heavily damaged by a bomb. Congressman Leland W. Powers’ home in Massachusetts was badly damaged by a bomb. In Philadelphia, the Rectory of Our Lady of Victory parish was nearly destroyed by a bomb.
As the year wore on, the public demanded Congress do something about the violence. Towards the end of 1919, over 4,000 suspected Bolsheviks/Anarchists were arrested. On Dec. 21, the U.S. deported 249 anarchists to Russia on a US Army transport - guarded by 250 US Army troops.(1)
But the Bolsheviks had one more surprise. At noon, on Sep. 16, 1920, a huge bomb in a horse-drawn wagon left in front of the U.S. Sub-Treasury Building on Wall Street, and opposite the N. Y. Stock Exchange exploded. Thirty nine people died, 200 were wounded and the horse was blown to pieces. No one was ever charged with this crime.
The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It was used by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to the Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut. In his letter, Jefferson assured the Baptists that the government could not interfere with their denomination’s form of worship because of ‘a wall of separation of church and state.’
This is all Jefferson meant in his letter. Jefferson believed that the government was not to interfere with religious expression as happened in so many other countries. Over the next century and a half, government support of religious institutions was accepted as essential to maintaining a moral society through religious instructions.
The modern interpretation - rather re-interpretation - of the First Amendment to the Constitution is fraudulent since it isn’t even based on the Constitution - rather one sentence in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. This re-interpretation of separation of church and state was 100% politically motivated. It was a deliberate invention to give legal justification for implementing a new moral agenda on the American people by the political left. So what is the moral agenda of the political left? These people reject the morals of Christianity. The objective was to free society of the “constraints” of Judeo Christian ethics, to eliminate Christianity as the basis for law in America and establish a secular, pagan culture in America. This objective has been achieved. The civility and stability that American society used to be is mostly gone. What made American culture so attractive to the rest of the world is gone.
The people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should know what they meant!!! There is no evidence whatsoever that the founding fathers wanted to keep Christian morality, ideals or symbols out of public life. The Founders recognized that laws must be based on a moral code - or else laws are meaningless. The moral code that America was founded on was Christianity and the Bible. This fact is undeniable.
La Raza Unida should not be confused with NCLR - National Council of La Raza - which is a different group, although they both have many similar objectives.
In 1972 the First La Raza Unida Party (RUP) National Convention was held and Gutierrez was elected as National Chair of the Party. RUP rejected both the Republican and Democratic Party and created an independent political movement to advance their agenda. Initially they had some successes, but many Mexican Americans refused to run under the RUP banner. In 1978, RUP did poorly at the polls.
While La Raza Unida has engaged in legitimate civil rights issues, its true agenda was revealed at the 1980 convention. RUP declared a policy of Revolutionary Nationalism and the eventual takeover of what they refer to as Aztlan, which is composed of five southwestern states; California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. RUP wrongly believes that the southwest US was stolen from Mexico.(1)
Gutierrez, regarded as the movement’s leader, has one objective: Conquer the southwest US and make it a Mestizo nation. In a 1999 interview, he stated:
A: Aztlán is one half of the one Mexico that we need to build. This is the Mexico on the other side, north of the Rio Grande, El Rio Bravo. We have been dismembered since 1826 in Texas, and 1848 in the rest of the Southwest. And then after 1853 in La Mesia, from Tucson to the border of California. So the mission of Aztlán is to put back together the original land where our ancestors came from. So our movement, then, has everything to do with the Mexico that exists. And that is, to make it bigger, to return it to its original homeland size.(2)
A: Our numbers now are such that we are critical mass throughout the nation. Depending on what state you’re in, we’re on the verge of already being a majority minority. In some places, a majority, and in years to come, probably about one quarter of the entire United States population. We will exercise our rights, which include political sovereignty. So Aztlán will become a reality. It is not our fault that whites don’t make babies, and blacks are not growing in sufficient numbers, and there’s no other groups with such a goal to put their homeland back together again. We do. Those numbers will make it possible. I believe that in the next few years, we will see an irredentists movement, beyond assimilation, beyond integration, beyond separatism, to putting Mexico back together as one. That's Irredentism. One Mexico, one nation.(2)
Gutierrez and others like him somehow believe if you have Indian blood in you - Mestizos - you are some sort of superior human who doesn’t have to obey the border between the US and Mexico. This is all a scam for two reasons: First, Gutierrez is only attacking the border with the US, not other countries in Central America, and second, the Indians Gutierrez is talking about NEVER inhabited US territory. Being part Indian doesn’t make you superior or above the law. It means you're part indian.
More questions for the scammers: Why does everyone in this movement have Spanish names? Can you prove you are part Indian? What about Americans who are part Indian? Besides, there is no rule on how long someone has to live in a place before they become a ‘native.’ Most Americans have been here over 100 years and many over 200 years. That’s long enough to be a native. We’re staying. YOU can leave.
It’s OBVIOUS that RUP is only using the Indians as an excuse to give moral justification to their desire to reconquer the southwest US for Mexico. Many Mexicans still cannot accept the fact their big army lost wars to Texas in 1836 and then the US in 1846 - wars Mexico was certain they would win. Mexico was responsible for starting both wars!(1) With this type of imperialistic mindset, it is difficult to see how armed conflict can be avoided to stop this evil movement. What would trigger this war is anyone’s guess.
La Raza Unida believes that they should only vote for Mexican Americans. This is pure racism and hatemongering.
A number of charter schools are in existence that support, at least indirectly, this anti-American attitude. One example is La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles which is supported by National Council of La Raza and engages in ‘Indigenous Education’: “Semillas students receive instruction in three languages: English, Spanish, and Nahuatl (the indigenous language of Mexico)...” “HUEHUETLAMACHILISTLE, in Nahuatl, is how Semillas refers to Aztec cultural, environmental, historic and cosmic knowledge systems. Huehuetlamachilistle names the cosmovision or as best translated into English the wisdom about the universe and the relations among all that exists within it as experienced over time by Peoples indigenous to North America.” “In addition to a core expertise on Aztec culture, our educators have learned from the elders and oral traditions of the Haudenosaunee Confederation of Nations, the Zuni Pueblo, the Quiche Maya, and the Inca of Ecuador, all of which have struggled to straddle the challenge of ancient memory and modern reality.”(3)
Nahuati was the Aztec language, not Mexico’s. They seem to have forgotten that it was the Spanish who destroyed the Aztec, Mayan and Inca empires.
La Raza Unida opposed Proposition 187 in California in 1994, where the state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 had this introduction on the ballot: “The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.” Proposition 187 passed by 59 to 41 percent but was eventually declared unconstitutional by liberal judges after being challenged in court by La Raza and the morally clueless Clinton administration. Clinton was more interested in getting more voters for the Democratic party then doing what was right.
In a free country, you are always going to have evil people taking up misguided causes. La Raza Unida, like the KKK, must be exposed for the evil goals they are advancing. La Raza Unida supporters are nothing more than a bunch of thugs promoting confrontations and violence with law abiding Americans. Americans need to prepare themselves for any possibility.
43. Another example of this textbook allowing a critic to make inflammatory charges against America and reporting it as if it was a fact - which it isn’t. Tijerina should NOT be portrayed as a civil rights leader. He was, in truth, a violent, hate filled racist who was sentenced to prison for his roles in several violent crimes. Tijerina used land claims to inflame ethnic hatred because his true agenda was to drive all “Anglos” back to Europe and return the Southwest U.S. back to Mexico.(A) Basing his beliefs on one-sided research and hearsay, he became a domestic terrorist.
Tijerina made many racist generalizations about “anglos” and pursued a life long vendetta against “Anglos” who had done nothing wrong. In fact, Tijerina’s diatribes against Anglo Americans is eerily similar to Hitler blaming all of Germany’s problems on the Jews.
Tijerina’s claim that Anglo culture stole the Chicanos’ heritage is a phony argument. No other ethnic group has make these bogus claims. Millions of people from Germany, Poland, Italy, Norway and many other countries have come to America, learned English, and did not feel ‘oppressed” or “Culturally deprived.” Have Anglos ever told Mexican Americans they can’t eat Mexican food? Have Mexican Americans been told they can’t do the Mexican Hat Dance? Did Congress outlaw Mariachi Music? Have US history books refused to teach students about Mexican America military leaders, politicians and civil rights leaders? Did Congress ever pass a law saying you couldn’t speak Spanish in America? Obviously everyone who lives in America, including Mexicans, are expected to learn English. This is as it should be, otherwise we will be divided by language. This is why the Founding Fathers adopted our national motto “E Pluribus Unum” in 1782 - "Out of many, One." The obvious truth is Chicano heritage has NOT been stolen. In his book, Tijerina claims Mexican Americans are oppressed. This is a lie. Mexican Americans are not oppressed. They may think they are because of being fed all these lies by Tijerina and other hate filled leaders in the Mexican American Community.
On 5 June 1967, Tijerina led about 20 heavily armed men in a raid on the Rio Arriba County Courthouse where they attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of the County's district attorney but he had left the Courthouse earlier.(B) A state police officer and a jailer, Eulogio Salazar, were shot and a sheriff’s deputy and a reporter were taken hostage. Another guard lost several teeth when punched in the face by one of Tijerina’s “warriors” as he called them.(C) Unbelievably, Tijerina took his 18 year old daughter Rosita and his two sons, 13 year old Daniel and older son David on his “mission.”(D) Eulogio Salazar later testified at a preliminary hearing that he was shot through the cheek as he jumped out a court house window by Tijerina. Another couple of inches and Tijerina would have shot Salazar in the head and possibly killed him. The case never went to trial. On Jan. 2, 1968, Salazar was abducted and beaten to death.(E)(F)(G) Salazar’s death was intended to silence a key witness and to intimidate all others. It worked. No one was ever charged with Salazar’s murder. Not surprisingly, Tijerina had an alibi - and he knows who did it. It was the CIA and FBI who ordered the death of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and Eulogio Salazar.(H)
Tijerina was also suspected of involvement in an arson attack on a military installation, but was never charged.(I) The racist Tijerina calls children of mixed marriages - “anglos” and Mexicans - “coyotes.”(J) This textbook doesn’t bother to tell any of this.
As for the charge of Mexican land being stolen, the roots of this conflict started in 1848, when the U.S. and Mexico ratified different versions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican American War. The initial treaty was negotiated by Nicholas Trist for the United States and special commissioners representing the collapsed government of Mexico. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on February 2, 1848 near Mexico City and sent to Washington for ratification. The U.S. Senate deleted Article X and made other changes to the treaty before it was ratified on 10 March 1848. Mexico was not happy about the changes and negotiated the Protocol of Querétaro. Mexico ratified the amended Treaty along with the Protocol which basically returned the Treaty to it’s original wording. The U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Protocol of Querétaro and was not obligated to abide by it. In addition, the treaty provided no standard for validation of land grants. These disputes over the Treaty and land grants continues to this day.
The key disagreement with the Treaty was over Article X which was deleted by the U.S. for two very good reasons:
1) Article X forced Texas to go back to boundaries that existed in March, 1836. Since Mexico’s intentions was to conquer Texas again, they saw no need to negotiate with Texas over land grants or on anything else. So Mexico brought this situation on themselves by their obstinate refusal to negotiate with Texas and later the U.S. Land boundaries were now 10 years old and many boundaries had changed. Never the less, Texas on it’s own instituted a program of recognizing Spanish/Mexican land grants in the state.
2) Article VIII already bound the U.S. to recognize private property rights of Mexicans whose property now was in the U.S., so what was Mexico’s intentions for having Article X in the initial treaty? Article X bound the U.S. to recognize massive communal land grants in New Mexico. Between 1837 and 1848, Manuel Armijo, the last Mexican governor of New Mexico gave away over half of the 31 MILLION acres of land granted to all Mexicans under Spain and Mexico.(K) These huge land grants violated Mexican law and should never have been granted!(L) The U.S. correctly viewed Article X as a back door method by Mexico of maintaining Mexican hold on vast amounts of land that now belonged to the U.S. Article 12 of the Treaty states the U.S. will pay Mexico $15 million for the land transfered to the U.S. - not the land minus the land grants. The U.S. had the right, as the owner of ALL the land to limit grant sizes as was done when the U.S. purchased Florida. Mexico knowingly violated their own laws with these huge land grants - and then expected the U.S. to recognize these grants. While the U.S. was bound to honor private property of individual Mexicans, the U.S. had no legal or moral obligation to recognize Mexican claims to vast amounts of land which often had no Mexicans there. U.S. Secretary of State John M. Clayton made it clear the U.S. viewed article X as a cheating tool by Mexico: “Could it however reasonably be expected that this government, in addition to the treasure and blood expended in prosecuting the war, would engage to pay fifteen millions of dollars for lands, the title to the most valuable part of which had been extinguished?”(M) Mexico lost the war. The U.S. could have kicked out all the Mexicans and sent them back to Mexico but was trying to be fair.
Not only were these huge grants illegal under Mexican law, but the grantees never fulfilled their obligations in order to claim possession of many grants in northern New Mexico. All of these massive grants were in Indian controlled territory(N) and had never been permanently occupied. They were always run off by Indian attacks. If grantees didn’t settle the grant after it was granted due to Indian attacks or abandoned their settlements due to Indians raids, the grant was NOT considered valid under Spanish/Mexican law. Under Spanish/Mexican law, the most important aspect of the validity of a land grant was continuous occupation.(O)
Nearly all of the critics who condemn America over Mexican land claims are intellectually dishonest. The U.S. government approved grants that should not have been approved and approved grants for far more acreage then they should have been - but these critics don’t care about that. They only care when they believe Mexicans were cheated out of land.
Determining the validity of some claims was difficult and some critics say the US was hyper legal with respect to approving land claims in New Mexico but this is not correct. No one could expect the U.S. to assume every Mexican who claimed land had a valid title. There had to be a mechanism for determining the legality of title to millions of acres of land made by Spanish and Mexican governments over some 150 years. Mexico had no authority to violate our Constitution and force it’s laws on us.
As fraud became more of a problem, Congress created The Court of Private Land Claims (CPLC) in 1891. The CPLC was charged with addressing all unresolved land claims in New Mexico, California and other states. The CPLC finished its work in 1904. The CPLC discovered most of the eleven forgeries of land grant documents, including the notorious Peralta-Reavis grant request for 12 MILLION acres.(P) But the CPLC didn’t get the chance to examine the Ramon Vigil Grant. This grant of 31,802 acres was confirmed by Congess on June 1860. In the 1990s, historian Marjorie Bell Chambers (1923-2006) proved that the grant document was a forgery and the grant should never have been approved.(Q)
It’s interesting that the claims of Mexican land grants being stolen occurred primarily in New Mexico, not California, Florida or the Louisiana Purchase. Why? These massive land grants were done only in New Mexico and was the root cause of most of the disputes.(R) It was apparent that these massive community grants were being used as a cheating tool by Mexico - trying to maintain hold of huge amounts of land - through the Protocol of Querétaro - that now belonged to the U.S. Ultimately, the U.S. government decided the simplest and fairest way to deal with a lot of these huge amounts of claimed Community land was to turn them into national forests for all to enjoy. The demand for land or monetary compensation is interesting since all the land Mexican Americans are demanding compensation for used to be Indian land.
An exhaustive investigation into New Mexico land grant issues by the GAO - completed in 2004 - found that the U.S. government did NOT violate treaty obligations with land grant claimants.(S) Many of the problems in this process were caused by Spanish/Mexican officials who gave out land grants with vague, overlapping and sometimes no boundaries. Some titles didn’t mention all the people in the grant - another opportunity for fraud. Unlike Florida and the Louisiana Purchase, where claimants had to pay the cost of the land survey, the US financed survey costs from 1854 to 1862, when the money was shifted to the war effort(QQ). As reports of boundary fraud and forgeries became a concern, Congress, in July 1876, required land claimants to pay the full cost of a land survey.(T) Also, Many Mexican claim holders waited many years before submitting their claims for approval.
Spain and Mexico made a total of 295 land grants in New Mexico - 141 Individual and 154 Community land claims.(U) A total of 105, or 68% of the Community land grants were approved by the US government, totalling 5.96 MILLION acres, or 63.5% of the acreage claimed.(V) Combining both Individual and Community land grants, the US government awarded 55% of the land claimed by Mexicans in New Mexico. Critics claim only 24% of claimed acreage was approved in New Mexico(W) versus 73% in California,(X) asserting that the disparity in the approval rate showed defective procedures were used in New Mexico. This assertion is wrong for four reasons: (1) a large amount of land critics count is located outside of New Mexico;(Y) (2) critics count claims that were never pursued or withdrawn;(Z) (3) acreage was “double-counted” because they were claimed by more then one person;(Y) (4) some claimants greatly exaggerated the size of their claim.(Y)(AA)
Individuals living on Community land grants that were rejected by the government were allowed to keep their individual home lots (160 acres) under the small-holding claims provision of the 1891 Act. The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management estimates about 73,000 acres of land was awarded through small-holding claims.(BB)
Critics of the confirmation process condemn most judicial rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. But they had their own frustrations. Justice Brewer, delivering the Court’s decision on Ely's Administrator v. United States, (1898) stated: “Few cases presented to this Court are more perplexing than those involving Mexican grants. The changes in the governing power as well as in the form of government were so frequent, there is so much indefiniteness and lack of precision in the language of the statutes and ordinances, and the modes of procedure were in so many respects essentially different from those to which we are accustomed, that it is often quite difficult to determine whether an alleged grant was made by officers who at the time were authorized to act for the government, and was consummated according to the forms of procedure then recognized as essential.”(CC)
MALDEF supports “rights” for illegal aliens that they are NOT entitled too because they are here ILLEGALLY. MALDEF supports taxpayer funding for social services for illegal immigrants. MALDEF opposed - sometimes violently - Proposition 187 in California in 1994, where the state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 had this introduction on the ballot: “The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.” Proposition 187 passed by 59 to 41 percent but was eventually declared unconstitutional by liberal judges after being challenged in court by MALDEF and the morally clueless Clinton administration. Clinton was more interested in getting more voters for the democratic party then in doing what was right.
MALDEF opposes enforcement of “E-Verify” to determine if a job applicant is in the US illegally.(1)
MALDEF opposed the bipartisan SAVE Act bill in Congress in 2007 (H.R. 4088 in the House and S. 2368 in the Senate). This bill would have secured America's borders by adding 10,000 border patrol agents, require all US employers to use “E-Verify” to determine if you are in the country legally and expanded the 287(g) program, in which local police are trained to enforce federal immigration laws when the situation arrises in the normal performance of their duties.(2)
MALDEF supports Mexico dumping 55,000 children into the US and files lawsuits against cities that refuses to accept all these illegals. These children should be sent back to their countries of origin - to their parents.(4)
MALDEF pushed for California to pass the AB540 law that allows reduced tuition for students who are illegal aliens.(5)
For nearly 200 years, immigrants learned English and didn’t demand special accommodations. MALDEF opposes making English the official language of the US.(6)
MALDEF supports amnesty for the 10-12 MILLION illegals now in the country, even though amnesty would result in 20 to 40 million more relatives coming into our country.(7)
MALDEF was co-founded by two Mexican Americans in 1968: Mario Obledo, who died in 2010 and Pedro Tijerina, who died in 2003. Statements by Obledo shows how racist he was. Obledo made statements about California becoming a "Hispanic state" at least twice, during an appearance on Ray Briem's talk radio show in May or June of 1998, and again on the Tom Leykis' talk radio show:
MALDEF believes the southwest US historically belongs to Mexico. This is NOT true. The Southwest US historically belonged to the Indians. Mexico stole this land from the Indians and then lost this land to the US when Mexico attacked the US to start the Mexican American War of 1846 - a war Mexico was certain they would win.(9)
Obledo also proved his xenophobic racism at the 1984 Democratic National Convention when he threatened to boycott voting to protest the candidacy of Walter Mondale, declaring “I am a Democrat and I love may party, but I love my (Mexican) community more!”(10)
Obledo and his like are really traitors who equate assimilation into America with subordination and inferiority. People who leave their native lands behind to assimilate into America, as over 70 million have done since 1790, are now viewed as sell outs who have betrayed their true cultural identity. These traitor immigrants come here with demands. They want catered to in their own language. They demand affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture. The amazing thing about these immigrants who think they are better then Americans is that they come from countries that are dysfunctional - mostly Mexico. IF MEXICO IS SO WONDERFUL, WHY ARE YOU HERE??? Is it because you want to escape political turmoil, murderous drug cartels, widespread poverty, a disastrous economic system, bad health care and poor education? Mexico’s contributions to scientific, social and economic advancements are nil. The US saved the world in World Wars One and Two and the Cold War. Mexico contributions were nil. Why aren’t millions of people going TO Mexico, instead of LEAVING Mexico? Who would want the US become like Mexico?
The Founding Fathers knew that immigrants from many different countries would be coming to America. This is why they adopted our national motto “E Pluribus Unum” in 1782 - "Out of many, one." America had to have areas of conformity, or else we would not have a unified nation. These racist immigrants, mostly Mexicans, want to destroy, not assimilate.
Tijerina grew up in Laredo, Texas and was not a victim of prejudice. In fact, when Tijerina needed his high school diploma to get into college, the principal, J. W. Nixon, told him: “Pete, if you pass the college entrance exam to Texas, I’ll give you your diploma.” Tijerina passed and got his high school diploma.(13)
During World War 2, as the only Mexican American in his company, Tijerina said his ethnicity was never a concern, as he was surrounded by many different ethnicities from all over the country.(13) By the 1950s, Tijerina began to see everything from a racial-ethnic perspective - and became obsessed that prejudice was everywhere.
The first one occurred on August 2, 1964, when the US Destroyer Maddox intercepted enemy communications reporting North Vietnamese vessels getting under way, possibly intent on attacking the destroyer. The Maddox was in international waters. At 1440 hours (2:40pm), the destroyer detected three North Vietnamese patrol boats approaching her position at high speed. The Captain, John J. Herrick ordered gun crews to open fire if the vessels closed to within 10,000 yards of the destroyer, and at about 1505 hours, three 5-inch shots were fired across the bow of the closest boat. The first torpedo boat then launched a torpedo and veered away. A second boat then launched two torpedos at the destroyer but was hit by gunfire from the Maddox. The first vessel then launched a second torpedo and opened fire with her 14.5-mm guns, but shell fire from the Maddox hit that boat. Then four fighter jets from the Aircraft Carrier USS Ticonderoga attacked the enemy vessels. The two lead boats were heavily damaged and the third was left dead in the water and burning.
Two days later, on August 4, Maddox returned to the area, supported by the destroyer USS Turner Joy. On the morning of 4 August, U.S. intelligence intercepted a report indicating North Vietnam intended to conduct offensive operations in the Gulf of Tonkin. In contrast to the clear conditions two days earlier, bad weather reduced visibility and increased wave heights to six feet. In addition to the difficult detection conditions, the Maddox's SPS-40 long-range air-search radar and the Turner Joy's SPG-53 fire-control radar were both inoperative.
The Maddox nevertheless reported at 2040 that she was tracking unidentified vessels. The approaching vessels seemed to come at the ships from multiple directions. Targets would appear - and then disappear. Over the next three hours, the two ships repeatedly maneuvered at high speeds to evade perceived enemy boat attacks. The destroyers fired over 350 shells at false targets. Air support was called in.
Herrick questioned his crew and reviewed the preceding hours' events. He sent a highest priority message to Honolulu, which was received in Washington at 1327 on 4 August, declaring his doubts: "Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonar men may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by MADDOX. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken."
One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who became famous later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets -- there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."
Had the August 2 attack not taken place, it is likely that Johnson would not have jumped to conclusions and ordered air strikes against North Vietnam. But with the first attack confirmed, Johnson unwisely assumed the second one on Aug 4 had occurred as well. President Johnson then gave this televised message to the nation: "The initial attack on the destroyer Maddox, on August 2, was repeated today by a number of hostile vessels attacking two U.S. destroyers with torpedoes…. Air action is now in execution against gunboats and certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam which have been used in these hostile operations."
Why was the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin in the first place? By 1958, North Vietnam’s infiltration into the South with men and material was known. By 1964, South Vietnam was losing its fight against Communist Viet Cong guerrillas, which received military support from the north. The South then began Commando raids against North Vietnamese coastal installations in retaliation. The US Navy was attempting to determine the extent of North Vietnam's maritime infiltration into the South and to identify the North's coastal defenses so that the US could better support South Vietnam's commando operations against the North.
Read about the torture of our prisoners of war. Brutal and inhuman is what communists have always been known for.
49. An absolute lie. Because of North Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia’s territory, a majority of Cambodians favored the US. There were large anti-Vietnamese riots in 1970 which propelled Lon Nol, a pro western leader to take control of the government from Prince Sihanouk. Lon Nol demanded foreign troops get out of Cambodia. North Vietnam’s response was to try to conquer the entire country, but failed with the help of US aerial bombing. Sihanouk then joined forces with communist Pol Pot and started a civil war against the Lon Nol government. America began bombing these communist troops. There were also up to 40,000 North Vietnamese troops and many supply depots in lightly populated eastern Cambodia which the US bombed. Again, the targets were military, not civilian. These people were combatants, NOT civilians.
The half million civilians supposedly killed by US bombs is propaganda. The US would have had to carpet bomb cities to kill this many civilians, which we obviously didn’t do. So how do people come up with these high number of civilian deaths? There have been numerous studies on this subject and the numbers go all over the place. Why? Because no one really knows, but here’s what we do know: The US targeted military targets so the true figure is a very small fraction of what this book claims.
Page 831 - The First Moon Landing
“The Nixon years witnessed the fulfillment of President Kennedy’s commitment in 1961 to achieve the goal, ‘before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon.” That man was Apollo 11 astronaut Neil A. Armstrong."
"On July 20, 1969, at 10:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Armstrong descended from the Eagle lunar landing craft and set foot on the moon’s surface. Armstrong radiod back the famous message: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
Landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth - 5 times - was the greatest technological achievement in world history. To this day, no other nation has accomplished this feat. To dedicate a mere 5 paragraphs (eleven sentences) and one picture (2 7/8 x 3 3/8 - right) to this unprecedented technological achievement is a smack in the face of America and another way this book trivializes great American accomplishments. This book has 2 full pages devoted to the Joe McCarthy era of the 1950s. This book should have two pages dedicated to the Space Program and 5 paragraphs to Joe McCarthy.
Page 850 - The Nation’s Birthday
“Americans held a nationwide birthday party to mark July 4, 1976, the bicentennial, the 200th anniversary of the approval of the Declaration of Independence.”
The caption under the picture at right reads: “VIEWING HISTORY: Majestic tall ships sail past the Statue of Liberty in celebrationm of the bicentennial. Drawing inferences: What images of the nation’s past do these ships bring to mind?”
CORRECTION: Another way this book trivializes America. This book has 2 paragraphs - 6 sentences - on the nation’s bicentennial along with a picture - right. The McCarthy era had 2 full pages. The nation’s 200th birthday was a huge national event and should be at least 2 pages. There is a picture of a huge fireworks display on pages 822-823 celebrating the arrival of the new century, a celebration over really nothing - a change of year.
The question posed to students under the photo - “What images of the nation’s past do these ships bring to mind?” - is an odd question. The discussion should be on issues like: How America has maintained it’s freedom for 200 years; the principles of our Republic; the brilliance of the Constitution and it’s authors; how America has saved the free world in the 20th century and so on.
More coming soon on this book