Why the Aztlan theory is a bit wrong
The inmates are running the asylum!
Over the last couple of weeks, America has witnessed Mexican illegals blocking the streets of our cities demanding that Congress not pass the Sensenbrenner bill. Many of them claim that they want to work, become citizens, learn English, (and eventually become Americans). However, there is a disturbing element to the crowd.
That carrying the Mexican flags. And some very insidious signs. Here is one site:
www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm
While I generally think that World Net Daily is generally propaganda, the perspective does ned to be addressed:
wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49482
The extremists, some of whom call themselves the Palestineans of America (will that win sympathy- by comparing them with a terrorist people?), want to ignore some messy facts of American history that deflates their point of view - in addition to their generally genocidal arguments.
1) Most native Americans are part, well, Native American.
Those who are ethnically American have some Indian in their geneological background. Or more. I have been told that I am descended from some Indian in Quebec (in addition to other illustrious parts of my genelogical background). And even though I live in Washington state, a lot of people I know, who would appear to be white, have a clear Cherokee ancestor they can point to. I probably know more people of Cherokee descent, in fact, than I know of individuals with something like Russian descent.
So, if you expel the "white invaders", how do you pick and choose? As probably the majority of American ethnics are part Indian, do you leave certain parts, like say, a finger, a hand, a leg, behind?
2) By-and-large, much of America really was empty when the settlers moved in.
No, America was not some kind of wilderness. Instead, diseases like smallpox wiped out large groups of Indians. Areas like New England, the Pacific Northwest, California, and even Virginia, was empty enough so that people could move in and settle with relatively inconsiderable disruptions to native lifestyles. The Pilgrims, for example, settled in areas where the fields were already cleared! And the villagers had pretty much perished from the scene, due to disease.
Yes, there was genocide up thru the 19th century. This is an ugly fact of American history. But it was small compared to other genocides throughout history (see below!). In some areas, however, the Indians melded in quite peacefully. In New England, they became almost totally assimilated. In western Washington, many natives went quite peaceably to reservations (although I do admit that such a practice violates basic human rights principles). In the Piedmont areas of the south, there was very little in the way of "Indian Wars," so plantations were quite easily set up.
While not a sterling picture, most old-world immigrants, and the descendents of the original immigrants, did live peacefully side-by-side. "The land was stolen" argument presents a too simplistic picture of American history that ignores way too many details. Especially the following. Had the land been heavily occupied by the natives, and European descendents truly did steal all land forcibly, there would have been much, much more bloodshed in American history.
3) The Southwest was once predominately Mexican.
Not true at all.
Most of the land taken from Mexico at the end of the the Mexican-American war contained hardly any Mexicans. The boundaries between the United States in Mexico were first drawn up in the 1820's. And these were based upon Spanish land claims - and they were recent Spanish land claims. Before the 1760's, the Spanish did not get too far north of New Mexico, and was only prodded to do so when the Russians started making their way into Alaska. And that was only along the California coast.
In fact, Mexico had little idea of what it possessed! For example, when Jim Bridger entered the Great Salt Lake valley in the 1840's, he was the first white man to witness the Great Salt Lake. And this lake was completely within Mexican territory. The Great Salt Lake is something that is kinda hard to miss.
And by white man, I mean anyone descended from Europeans. At that time, few people from the central Valley of Mexico came north.
The reason why Mexico had problems with Texas is because of illegal American immigrants to that area. Why did they come? Because, in 1821, the Mexican government invited them to settle because it was underpopulated. Immigrants to New Mexico probably came largely from Spain.
In fact, the only area with a significant Mexican population was California. And even then, Indians vastly outnumbered that ethnic group.
When it came to population, vast areas of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and western Colorado had a serious dearth of Hispanics. To say that they had occupied that area for generations is not only false, it is almost laughable.
4) The American southwest was the original homeland of the Aztecs.
Probably true. However, there is a degree of falsehood to this claim.
Many of the indigeneous people of the southwest spoke languages in a language group called Uto-Aztecan. This goes down into central America. The northernmost reach is in southern Oregon and western Montana. And Aztec myth points to their homeland somewhere in northern Mexico - or maybe somewhere in the arid part of the United States (even southeastern Oregon?)
However, the Aztecs left this area sometime in the 11th-13th centuries. Long, long before the Europeans made any attempt to open up the new world. I.e., the Europeans had absolutely nothing to do with the Aztecs leaving their homeland. They did it on their own accord.
By the time the Europeans discovered the Aztecs, the were pouncing on everyone they could get ahold of. In the valley of Mexico. And maybe beyond - like to Colorado, as some archeological evidence suggests. If the Aztecs came back home, it was to engage in their ritual slaughter for which they were famous.
Once a people leaves an area, they really have no claim to it anymore. This sounds a lot like Aztec imperialism. In fact, these extremists sound much like the bullies from whom they claim descent - the Aztecs, who were among the top five bullies in world history.
5) Aztlan is a recreation of the Aztec homeland
This has no historical truth to it. As I noted above, they left a long long time ago.
In fact, Aztlan includes much of northern Mexico. To create this so-called homeland would be to destroy Mexico, too.
6) By implication, Europeans screwed the New World up. So they have a right to claim the southwest and expel all other races.
The goal of these extremists is to expel all those of European descent and make them pay reparations for what has happened over the last 500 years.
Most Aztec bullying.
The very reason why the Aztec empire was conquered by a handful of Spaniars was because the Aztecs were extreme assholes. They would go to war to provide ritual sacrifies in Tenochtilan. Their neighbors were kinda tired of this, and welcomed the Spaniards almost as liberators. Had they not enslaved the natives, the Spaniards would have been liberators.
On the other hand, it was the ancestors of today's Americans - known as the Founding Fathers - who were the pioneers of human rights. Those things which would have made every single Aztec leader, general, and even infantryman subject to war crimes tribunals in the Hague.
Americans need to see the goals of the extremists to see who we are dealing with. The site is:
aztlan.net/
One can see their bigotry extends to other areas as well. They are very anti-semitic, cheer on the Palestinean uprisings, and are clearly homophobic.
In sum, some of those egging on the protests do have a rightful claim of being the descendents of the Aztecs - a bunch of intolerant bullies who will stop at nothing to get their way. Even if it means instigating civil war. Hence, some of these need to be monitored as hate groups.
Over the last couple of weeks, America has witnessed Mexican illegals blocking the streets of our cities demanding that Congress not pass the Sensenbrenner bill. Many of them claim that they want to work, become citizens, learn English, (and eventually become Americans). However, there is a disturbing element to the crowd.
That carrying the Mexican flags. And some very insidious signs. Here is one site:
www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm
While I generally think that World Net Daily is generally propaganda, the perspective does ned to be addressed:
wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49482
The extremists, some of whom call themselves the Palestineans of America (will that win sympathy- by comparing them with a terrorist people?), want to ignore some messy facts of American history that deflates their point of view - in addition to their generally genocidal arguments.
1) Most native Americans are part, well, Native American.
Those who are ethnically American have some Indian in their geneological background. Or more. I have been told that I am descended from some Indian in Quebec (in addition to other illustrious parts of my genelogical background). And even though I live in Washington state, a lot of people I know, who would appear to be white, have a clear Cherokee ancestor they can point to. I probably know more people of Cherokee descent, in fact, than I know of individuals with something like Russian descent.
So, if you expel the "white invaders", how do you pick and choose? As probably the majority of American ethnics are part Indian, do you leave certain parts, like say, a finger, a hand, a leg, behind?
2) By-and-large, much of America really was empty when the settlers moved in.
No, America was not some kind of wilderness. Instead, diseases like smallpox wiped out large groups of Indians. Areas like New England, the Pacific Northwest, California, and even Virginia, was empty enough so that people could move in and settle with relatively inconsiderable disruptions to native lifestyles. The Pilgrims, for example, settled in areas where the fields were already cleared! And the villagers had pretty much perished from the scene, due to disease.
Yes, there was genocide up thru the 19th century. This is an ugly fact of American history. But it was small compared to other genocides throughout history (see below!). In some areas, however, the Indians melded in quite peacefully. In New England, they became almost totally assimilated. In western Washington, many natives went quite peaceably to reservations (although I do admit that such a practice violates basic human rights principles). In the Piedmont areas of the south, there was very little in the way of "Indian Wars," so plantations were quite easily set up.
While not a sterling picture, most old-world immigrants, and the descendents of the original immigrants, did live peacefully side-by-side. "The land was stolen" argument presents a too simplistic picture of American history that ignores way too many details. Especially the following. Had the land been heavily occupied by the natives, and European descendents truly did steal all land forcibly, there would have been much, much more bloodshed in American history.
3) The Southwest was once predominately Mexican.
Not true at all.
Most of the land taken from Mexico at the end of the the Mexican-American war contained hardly any Mexicans. The boundaries between the United States in Mexico were first drawn up in the 1820's. And these were based upon Spanish land claims - and they were recent Spanish land claims. Before the 1760's, the Spanish did not get too far north of New Mexico, and was only prodded to do so when the Russians started making their way into Alaska. And that was only along the California coast.
In fact, Mexico had little idea of what it possessed! For example, when Jim Bridger entered the Great Salt Lake valley in the 1840's, he was the first white man to witness the Great Salt Lake. And this lake was completely within Mexican territory. The Great Salt Lake is something that is kinda hard to miss.
And by white man, I mean anyone descended from Europeans. At that time, few people from the central Valley of Mexico came north.
The reason why Mexico had problems with Texas is because of illegal American immigrants to that area. Why did they come? Because, in 1821, the Mexican government invited them to settle because it was underpopulated. Immigrants to New Mexico probably came largely from Spain.
In fact, the only area with a significant Mexican population was California. And even then, Indians vastly outnumbered that ethnic group.
When it came to population, vast areas of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and western Colorado had a serious dearth of Hispanics. To say that they had occupied that area for generations is not only false, it is almost laughable.
4) The American southwest was the original homeland of the Aztecs.
Probably true. However, there is a degree of falsehood to this claim.
Many of the indigeneous people of the southwest spoke languages in a language group called Uto-Aztecan. This goes down into central America. The northernmost reach is in southern Oregon and western Montana. And Aztec myth points to their homeland somewhere in northern Mexico - or maybe somewhere in the arid part of the United States (even southeastern Oregon?)
However, the Aztecs left this area sometime in the 11th-13th centuries. Long, long before the Europeans made any attempt to open up the new world. I.e., the Europeans had absolutely nothing to do with the Aztecs leaving their homeland. They did it on their own accord.
By the time the Europeans discovered the Aztecs, the were pouncing on everyone they could get ahold of. In the valley of Mexico. And maybe beyond - like to Colorado, as some archeological evidence suggests. If the Aztecs came back home, it was to engage in their ritual slaughter for which they were famous.
Once a people leaves an area, they really have no claim to it anymore. This sounds a lot like Aztec imperialism. In fact, these extremists sound much like the bullies from whom they claim descent - the Aztecs, who were among the top five bullies in world history.
5) Aztlan is a recreation of the Aztec homeland
This has no historical truth to it. As I noted above, they left a long long time ago.
In fact, Aztlan includes much of northern Mexico. To create this so-called homeland would be to destroy Mexico, too.
6) By implication, Europeans screwed the New World up. So they have a right to claim the southwest and expel all other races.
The goal of these extremists is to expel all those of European descent and make them pay reparations for what has happened over the last 500 years.
Most Aztec bullying.
The very reason why the Aztec empire was conquered by a handful of Spaniars was because the Aztecs were extreme assholes. They would go to war to provide ritual sacrifies in Tenochtilan. Their neighbors were kinda tired of this, and welcomed the Spaniards almost as liberators. Had they not enslaved the natives, the Spaniards would have been liberators.
On the other hand, it was the ancestors of today's Americans - known as the Founding Fathers - who were the pioneers of human rights. Those things which would have made every single Aztec leader, general, and even infantryman subject to war crimes tribunals in the Hague.
Americans need to see the goals of the extremists to see who we are dealing with. The site is:
aztlan.net/
One can see their bigotry extends to other areas as well. They are very anti-semitic, cheer on the Palestinean uprisings, and are clearly homophobic.
In sum, some of those egging on the protests do have a rightful claim of being the descendents of the Aztecs - a bunch of intolerant bullies who will stop at nothing to get their way. Even if it means instigating civil war. Hence, some of these need to be monitored as hate groups.
posted by EricMatthew at 8:31 PM
<< Home