the first illegal immigrants

[Mari333]

[Xipe Totec]

1. The Pinky Show

Best analysis of the situation I have ever heard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN1kp1ggWyM

[Lasher]

2. Everybody's ancestors came from somewhere else.

Even the ones of those 'native' americans in the cartoon.

[EFerrari]

3. But everyone's ancestors didn't instigate a genocide

and then turn around and fabricate a crime wave.

[Mari333]

4. +100000

[UndertheOcean]

27. +100000

[Lasher]

61. Everyone's ancestors have probably practiced genocide.

The Old Testament describes the genocides of Amalekites and Midianites. China’s Liwang of Zhou (885 BC - 878 BC) ordered his army not to leave old and young of a rebel country alive. The Third Punic War (149 BC to 146 BC) resulted in the complete destruction of the city of Carthage by the Romans. The 13th century Mongols were genocidal killers who were known to destroy whole nations leaving nothing but empty ruins and bones.

Recorded history is so replete with these atrocities, and unrecorded history is so certain to contain even more, that any reasonable person must realize that their ancestors probably practiced genocide.

The crime wave to which you refer is being imagined today by a minority of right wing extremists. As such very few would consider them ancestors. Both the English-speaking perpetrators of this propaganda and their mostly Spanish-speaking targets have ancestries that lead to genocides of indigenous peoples of the Americas.

[MattBaggins]

68. +100000

[EFerrari]

83. I understand the point you're making and am not sure I'd agree with it.

But, we are talking about this continent, not everyone and everything. This continent where the right wing nutcases keep comparing "illegals" to burglars, lol, overlooking the whole part about how the Mexican people are 80+ mestizo and descendents of first peoples. I guess if anything, Brewer et all would just be mad that they didn't get all of them/us.

/oops

[Lasher]

91. You opened that can of worms yourself when you mentioned "everyone's ancestors"

As you know, there are many of us whose ancestors came recently from outside North America.

I share your view about the nonexistent crime wave in border areas, but maybe you should have asked yourself how that propaganda is directly relevant to the discussion at hand before you tried to rule my argument out of bounds. I know you're angry about the new Arizona law, but I'm just sayin'.

You allege hypocrisy in those whose ancestors came here from Europe, because some today oppose the border environment that once existed. But your argument seems counterproductive when we lament the plight of indigenous North Americans. They were not able to seal their borders. But on reflection that seems like it would have been a pretty good idea if they had been able.

My point is, this is not yesterday. It's today. We don't need to close our borders to protect us from infectious diseases and genocides from the Mongol hordes. And neither is it in our interest to have uncontrolled borders like in the days of the Wild West.

[Cleita]

6. But they were here first, which is why some prefer to call

themselves the First Nations people. They did arrive here when there were no other humans, so where would they get their Green Cards, the bison and the mammoths?

[MellowDem]

62. The idea that today's natives were the "first"

is faulty. The tribes came over the Bering Strait in successive waves, which means that later tribes surely displaced earlier ones.

And what is with this archaic idea of "I was here first, so it's mine!" It used to be "might makes right" as well, but I don't think we use that saying to justify things nowadays. As it is, the "natives" are you and I, and everyone. The sooner we understand this, the better for Earth.

[EFerrari]

69. That idea is what is being sent up. It's European cultures

that believed you owned Earth and not the other way around.

[MellowDem]

71. Not really...

Most if not every culture thought they were God's gift to the world. And many cultures that were not European attempted to conquer large swathes of it.

[EFerrari]

74. But we're talking about America.

And we're not talking about how most people put themselves at the center of their value system. We're talking about the Earth as a commodity. Europeans held that belief, not Native Americans. They had their territories but they considered themselves stewards, not owners, for the most part. Very different from the Europeans who claimed this whole place for various monarchs. lol

[MellowDem]

78. Europeans had been "stewards" of land for millenia...

you do know that Europeans are descended from migratory tribes hunter-gatherer tribes that had to live off the land, much like every other human group in history, and were stewards of their own land? Of course, any hunter-gatherer society that is migratory will have different ideas of land than settled civilizations of farmers. But they are all "stewards" of the land. One can be a steward of their own land, which really is ultimately only in their own interest, and still sell the goods they get from the Earth as a commodity. It's just that the need or want for commodities in small hunter-gatherer tribes isn't the same as it is for much larger, more complex civilizations.

Hunter-gatherer societies are not somehow more "moral", they just have a much smaller impact on the land, though they require a lot of it to survive.

[EFerrari]

84. No, Native American philosophy, religion and belief systems are different. n/t

[Cleita]

75. If you are going to split hairs then we have to go back to Africa, to the

very first human populations and that wouldn't help this argument at all. Or maybe this argument should be taken to the Anthropology forum so the subject can be put under a microscope. In the meantime, my assertion than the first populations came in here to a land uninhabited by humans and I will add that there were about four ethnicities that came so it was a pretty homogenous population and they have a right to call themselves First Nation people.

[MellowDem]

80. Whatever...

the whole idea of calling yourself a "First Nation" people is just silly. It reminds me of the FFV. You can try to pretend that the people who came across the Bering Strait settled in one land and stayed there for 10,000 years without ever moving, being conquered, or conquering others, but I think it's a pretty insane quest. What's even more insane is that even if such a mythical people existed, why does it matter? Are they uber-natives now? Maybe they get a medal? It's just silly.

Maybe I should illegally immigrate to Europe. I'm 15/16ths European, so that means it really is my land, whatever the laws say. I think you can see how silly this argument is when related to illegal immigration and why it is not effective.

[Cleita]

81. Some European countries actually allow that, immigrating back to

the country of your ethnicity.

[MellowDem]

85. Which ones?

I understand dual citzenship. The really interesting one is Israel, not a European country, but still. The Law of Return which essentially gives Jews special status to settle in Israel. Were the Jews the first there? Does it matter? I think we all agree it is unfair to give certain people special rights because of their ethnicity and "nativeness" in relation to immigration. It's all based on preconcieved notions of "native" and many times on ideas of exclusion and isolation, not to mention "purity".

[Cleita]

87. I heard the Netherlands does and I believe Ireland does.

Otherwise I'm sure Google can be your friend if you are interested in reverse immigration.

[MellowDem]

88. In Ireland...

you must have at least one Irish (citizen) grandparent.

In Germany, the right to return only applies to those Germans who were expelled to Eastern Europe during WW2.

As far as I can tell, most "right to return" programs are rather obvious and crude attempts to bolster immigration to countries that need it, but who want the "right" kind of immigrant, if you know what I mean.

[Lasher]

65. That is true, but simplistic.

Indigenous people have ancestors who settled in unoccupied land. But everybody has an ancestor somewhere along the line who did the same. Many Native American tribes moved around. Sometime after 1000 AD, for example, nomadic Apacheans (Apache and Navajo) migrated from Alaska and Canada to occupied areas of Southwest North America.

[Cleita]

72. Just think of these posts as ideas stated simply.

You really wouldn't read a post that covered the whole migration from Clovis to Columbus, would you?

[Lasher]

86. I like simplicity, but not when it clouds an issue.

Maybe that's one reason this topic can be controversial. Maybe we're all making it too complicated. I have some Cherokee blood but I did not participate in the Trail of Tears on either side. I wasn't a slave 200 years ago and I have never owned any. I didn't die in the Potato Famine, or perpetuate it on anyone else. I'm not Sitting Bull or Hernán Cortés.

You know, after awhile it starts to seem a little elitist when others imply that they are Native Americans and the rest of us are not because we can't trace a bloodline (or one that's not pure enough) to someone who died centuries ago. I am a Native American simply because I was born in the USA, and I feel no personal guilt or pride on account of anything done by ancestors I never knew.

[G_j]

5. & the first boat people

[HereSince1628]

7. I think this is a potentially very intellectually rich topic...

The American story is certainly one of migration but depending upon the group immigration is:
1 colonization
2 imperial expansion (manifest destiny)
3 forced migration
a. forced migration as in slavery
b. migration due to displacement (as in first Americans pushed off c. forced departure (Cherokee and the Trail of Tears)
4 option for b and c is dissolution through subjugation or genocide

Our history has much to reteach us if we pay attention.
In a teabagged reality is there time to relearn?

[Bryn]

14. My ancestors came by forced migration ... Scottish Highland Clearances

The ship my ancestors came on docked in North Carolina.

[EFerrari]

16. I don't know that story. Do you have a link?

[Bryn]

18. Sure, here it is

The Highland Clearances (Scottish Gaelic: Fuadach nan Gàidheal, the expulsion of the Gael) were forced displacements of the population of the Scottish Highlands during the 18th and 19th centuries. They led to mass emigration to the sea coast, the Scottish Lowlands and the North American colonies. The clearances were part of a process of agricultural change throughout the United Kingdom, but were particularly notorious due to the late timing, the lack of legal protection for year-by-year tenants under Scottish law, the abruptness of the change from the traditional clan system and the brutality of many evictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

If you google "the highland clearances" many links will come up.

[EFerrari]

19. Thank you, Bryn. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. On a MORE GENERAL book

White Cargo by Kirkland...

HIGHLY recommended as an intro to the subject

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. 3.0 Forced Migration

don't forget this could take four main forms

Spiriters, aka kidnappers

Forced land clearing of the Scotch Irish and Irish

Prisoner relocation

Indentured Servitude.

In the middle of that right now... the statistics are just mind boggling. Oh and WHITE SLAVERY, use the right term, was actually far more widespread than the American Myth allows for. In fact, Botany Bay comes to mind, several Botany Bays. US Independence took from the UK a prisoner colony or two in fact.

[msongs]

8. "native" americans are not actually native, they immigrated as well nt

[EFerrari]

9. This must be the new talking point because I've seen it five times

in the last few days.

[MellowDem]

64. The cartoon is the talking point. nt

[EFerrari]

67. The cartoon is a self-evident fact that I've heard over the years

from a lot people including native Americans. But this "there's no such thing as a native American" is a new response and a silly one.

[MellowDem]

73. So the colonists were immigrants?

Is this the "fact" that is so self-evident? The same "immigrants" who were subjects of the British royal crown? Of course there are such things as native Americans, or Indians, or the specific tribal names. But the idea of "native" purity really does not exist and is a silly one.

[William Z. Foster]

95. good grief

The point of the cartoon is to try to engender some empathy in people and to get them to look in the mirror before they contribute to the growing mood of racist hatred and bigotry, to think about it a little bit.

Is the point of the cartoon seriously going over people's heads? It is like people are sleep-walking zombies or something - "...must stop illegal immigrants, must stop illegal immigrants, must stop illegal immigrants..."

[Cleita]

76. It's a way for Europeans not to feel guilt over the

colonization of the New World and the attempted genocide of its inhabitants. If you can claim we were all immigrants, there's no fault, with the big exception that the first settlers didn't find other humans here to kill. It's kind of like the racists insisting only Aryans are pure humans. It makes it much easier for them to hate everyone else.

[EFerrari]

89. Gotcha. It's like saying people who counter racism are being racist.

I don't know if you're interested in this but there was an interesting panel of three writers who live close to and write about the Arizona border on BookTv last night.

This is the link:

http://www.booktv.org/Program/11358/Panel+on+the+US+and+Mexico+Border+Margaret+Regan+The+Death+of+Josseline+Immigration+Stories+from+the+ArizonaMexico+Borderlands+Philip+Caputo+Crossers+A+Novel+and+David+Danelo+The+Bord.aspx

There is a description but not a transcript at this link.

[Taitertots]

10. What immigration laws did the Europeans break? n/t

[EFerrari]

12. Wouldn't the answer of that question require

knowing something about the governments of the indigenous people?

Because I'm sure you're not saying if a white person didn't create a law or a custom, it didn't exist, right?

[Mari333]

13. heh, they didnt get a chance to make any laws against the europeans anyway

wish they had..our ancestors just massacred millions of them

[EFerrari]

15. The Cherokee fought their removal all the way to the Supreme Court

and they won.

Not only did they pass their own law against the incursion but they continued to fight in the courts of the occupiers.

[aikoaiko]

30. Well, my ancestors were sitting around a table in Poland splitting a potato when that happened.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

33. And ducking, like mine were, because Russia and Germany

used that terrain as their battlefield as if no one lived there.

[Taitertots]

21. So, what laws did they break?

Laws without a system of jurisprudence or a legal system are meaningless.

[EFerrari]

22. Oh, so it was only a pinky swear?

Is that what you mean?

Who do you have to be not to know there were nations here?

What am I missing?

[Taitertots]

29. So which nations got to decide national immigration policy?

What were the borders of these "nations"? What was was their jurisprudence and where were their legal institutions?

The fiat of a powerless regional dictator (chief) is about as meaningless as a pinky swear.

[EFerrari]

31. Thank goodness we live in a post-racial world.

Do you seriously mean that you can't use The Google and find out the nations that lived on the east coast of this continent?

Do you seriously believe that calling national leaders "dictators" makes them so in objective reality?

And are you seriously arguing that might equals right? Yes, you are.

Unbelievable.

[Taitertots]

34. So then you should have no problem finding the laws European immigrants broke

What legal institutions did they have backing these laws?

Do you seriously believe calling them chiefs changes their dictatorial rule?

[William Z. Foster]

38. I did

As I said, virtually every treaty ever signed. Do you deny that? Do you excuse that? Isn't that a LOT more serious then some paperwork violation today by some desperate immigrant trying to feed their family? In what sort of hellish and racist mentality could it not be?

[Taitertots]

40. As if the European immigrants were not "some desperate immigrant trying to feed their family" n/t

[William Z. Foster]

52. right

Starting to get it yet?

"They" are us.

The people you are defending and siding with are every bit as much your enemy as they are the immigrants enemy.

You are fighting for the wrong team, dude! Get over here with us where you belong, and stop doing the boss's dirty work for him.

[Taitertots]

57. I don't think that comparison will help your cause

Are you saying that illegal immigrants toady are analogous to the Europeans who slaughtered the previous inhabitants?


I'm not "them". My family lived in Europe for that whole period. My whole blood line came from legal immigrants in the last 100-150 years.

[William Z. Foster]

93. no idea

You didn't understand what I said, then.

I am trying to detect or elicit some shred of human compassion from you. I am not promoting "my cause."

[William Z. Foster]

37. shallow and naive

The concept of "borders" and nations as you are presenting it is itself European and was created to serve the needs of the rulers and for the benefit of exploiters and imperialists. That concept was impressed upon the people who were already here, all over the Americas and to the great detriment of the peoples here.

Why are your "laws" and such to be taken seriously - especially when it involves harming and controlling others - but the laws of other people to be dismissed - "as meaningless as a pinky swear" - whatever that even means.

Ugly, nasty, racist, authoritarian.

[Taitertots]

41. Our laws are to be taken seriously because they have sound institutions backing them

While their "laws" were the fiat of dictators, with no objective system to uphold them.

[datasuspect]

42. your statement is almost imbecilic

[Taitertots]

43. Good to know that despite disagreeing, you lack the mental capacity to respond n/t

[datasuspect]

44. there isn't any point

you're either stirring shit, for real about what you say (shudder), or getting paid.

[William Z. Foster]

53. might be young and confused

Hard to say.

[William Z. Foster]

49. guns

"Our" laws are taken seriously because they have had big guns backing them.

[underseasurveyor]

55. You truly have no idea what you're talking about.

"Dictators?" Are you kidding? (of course you're not) Do you have a brain? (of course you don't that's obvious) (why am I talking to myself)

Not only is your complete ignorance of Tribal order, standards, systems and beliefs completely off the mark but your pompous, holier-than-thou, know-it-all and insulting tone are as offensive as it gets.

"OUR Laws are to be taken seriously?" "While THEIR Laws were the blahblahblah of dictators?"

You sir should be ashamed of yourself for your utter and complete racist ignorance is showing for all to see. However the one good thing to come out of this is that at least from this point forward everything you say, state and claim will be easily discounted since you are, Sir, FOS!

[era veteran]

58. There is only the white/ western culture that matters, The rest are heretics

who are in the way, right? Bad thinking dude, Run out now and buy this book: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus written by Charles C Mann This may finally give you a truthful explanation. Feed your head.

[treestar]

47. Ones that decide to enforce them and can

unlike the US with its current laws.

[William Z. Foster]

36. are you kidding?

Every damned treaty they signed.

You have "legality" confused with "power."

[G_j]

39. are you for real?

ever heard of Manifest Destiny?
I guess you are a proponent.

[bridgit]

60. I understand the OP as a cartoon that speaks with a certain poignancy...

To the current events of an American history still shaping. It also suggests, in that what is done is done; that maybe we *should* be requiring illegal Mexican immigrants & criminal Mexican enterprises - and other such folks from other locales - to show documentation along with some answers to Q's like what they're doing here

[William Z. Foster]

92. oh my God

"...maybe we *should* be requiring illegal Mexican immigrants & criminal Mexican enterprises - and other such folks from other locales - to show documentation along with some answers to Q's like what they're doing here."

I didn't just read that.

[bridgit]

96. You're advocating anarchy & the absence of decorum, isn't that correct?

[William Z. Foster]

97. no

The only alternative to calling for law enforcement to ask people "what they are doing here" is anarchy?

Objecting to "Mexicans" being associated with "criminals" disturbs the "decorum?"

[bridgit]

98. What law enforcement? If you offer amnesty, allot of that goes away but it is folly...

at least in my opinion; to offer even diluted, ethereal anarchies (which can be some of the worst) that suggest it is all A-OK/Hunky Dorey for 10's of millions - and not just Mexicans as your extrapolation goes out to all travelers coming to America or it goes out to none - but 10's of millions of people to cross and do what? Continue to seek to reside beneath whatever laws do exist? Resist 'the government' even where laws & regs would be able to enhance their position and ultimately family unit & livelihood?

Mr. Foster, if that isn't a 'shoo fly don't bother me' form of anarchy then imo it is an ice cream headache - we need to identify ways to assist them through already tight and getting tighter straits as they are being taken advantage of in ways others seldom address http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8263321#8264054

While I am only able to hope you might agree; I'd like to make one thing a bit more clear - NOT objecting to "Mexicans" "anyone" associated with "criminals" disturbs the decorum, Sir. It enables 'the criminal mind' to operate on a functional free pass. There's no longterm benefit to that and I do not care if their name *is* Montoya, Mannheim or McGuire

But if you are unaware, or are disinclined to absorb the oft times violent, pernicious activities of drug cartels from even further down south coursing through Mexico and up *into* the states dragging folks back to Juarez to be shot in the head/left for dead in the public square, well, then.......thanks for posting & have a lovely evening

[treestar]

46. As if the Native Americans had had laws, the Europeans would have obeyed them

and gone back home, right?

[Obamanaut]

11. If there were no laws in place re immigration, they were simply immigrants, not illegal. nt

[Mari333]

17. yes, the manifest destiny tea party types prefer to make laws now

like their european ancestors who merely came in and annihilated millions of innocent people who were not the right colour.

the more things change, etc.

[Obamanaut]

20. Even amongst the earlier inhabitants (prior to the Europeans) were

there not instances of 'land grabs', raiding, slavery, etc?

There has been little to no innocence since, well, forever.

[Xithras]

70. But there WERE laws in place. They DID break them.

The legal system of that time placed authority in the hands of the tribal chiefs, tribal councils, and regional councils of tribal leaders. In the case of the Iroquois League, there was an even larger "governmental" network in place.

Those tribes, with only a handful of exceptions, prohibited European settlers from moving onto their lands. Those prohibitions WERE the laws of the land, passed by the governments that existed at that time. When the settlers came anyway, they did so in violation of the laws that were already in existence.

For most tribes, the legal punishment for illegally immigrating into their territories was death. Our ancestors escaped this punishment simply because they were better armed than the enforcers of the legal system that existed before their arrival. That doesn't make them right, just better armed (criminal activities do not become legal simply because you're armed well enough to kill the police who try to stop them).

[Obamanaut]

77. Well, ok then. The post started with "If there were no...", so since

there were, and they were in place by the then inhabitants - where did those inhabitants come from? Some say they came from Asia, others say from other places.

But, there must have been land grabs even by the earlier inhabitants, or they would not have come up with a death penalty for it. A penalty which many today decry.

So, people have always been flawed. Probably always will be until we destroy ourselves.

[Xithras]

79. Certainly. Human history is really just a succession of invasions and genocides.

Genetically, it appears that the only Europeans who's ancestors didn't get there through invasion are a small percentage of the modern Basque and Welsh. Even their immunity from accusation is limited to discussions about humans, as their prehistoric ancestors displaced the Neanderthal who were there before.

We all have ancestors who were invaders. We all have ancestors who were invaded. That's just the reality of the human species. With only a couple of very limited exceptions, humans have ALWAYS been a mobile species. For most of our history, that mobility has meant conflict.

[William Z. Foster]

23. where are these talking points coming from?

"Native Americans are not really native, because they came from somewhere else" (so nobody has a right to be anywhere, I guess)

"The Europeans weren't breaking any laws (that they cared about)."

"Laws without a (European) system of jurisprudence are meaningless."

"If there were no (European) laws in place, they weren't illegal."

"There was murder and other bad stuff here before the Europeans came, so don't blame the Europeans."

WTF???

[Mari333]

24. racism, the concept of manifest destiny i.e. white people are more important

been around for a long time it seems...

[William Z. Foster]

25. so pervasive and dominant here

Yet so little discussion about it.

[Mari333]

26. yep

[William Z. Foster]

32. surprised me

I am starting to think that sexism and racism are a much bigger influence than we might think, and are behind much of the division among Democrats. There seems to be an assumption that we have covered that ground adequately and that there need be no further examination or discussion. But is that true? Do we know everything we need to know on those subjects, and are we all "good" on them? Obviously not.

There is also a pervasive bias in favor of the upper class that takes expression in a variety of areas - people arguing for privatization, against social programs, in favor of regressive taxation, against Labor, against public education, against the Greek strikers, and every other item on the right wing agenda. I think there is a connection between those arguments and sexism and racism, as well, since the same people are arguing the reactionary talking points across the board on all of the issues and doing so with relative ease and impunity. They repeat the talking points over and over again on thread after thread, even though they have been shown to be false and shown to be reactionary and in alignment with the right wing agenda. Certainly there is room for a variety of opinions, but blatant shilling for the upper class and vicious relentless attacks on the working class, promoted by spamming the board with the same talking points again and again after they have been discredited and refuted? Very strange.

Perhaps that reflects the demographics - those with the time and resources to devote here are more likely to be better-off, more likely to be white, and more likely to themselves be owners, bosses, investors, and landlords. Watch, now I will be accused of persecuting owners, bosses, investors, and landlords and whites.

[Mari333]

35. the democrats I prefer to align myself with

are the ones I grew up with...working class, union people, and working people.

dont see them much anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I am catching up with professional historians

and it is starting to die on the vine.

Alas that is in places like the American Historical Review, the Journal of Economic History, et al. Not on High School Textbooks. It should trickle down once the empire collapses

[G_j]

56. A policy of imperialistic expansion defended as necessary or benevolent.

Manifest Destiny
n.
A policy of imperialistic expansion defended as necessary or benevolent.
often Manifest Destiny The 19th-century doctrine that the United States had the right and duty to expand throughout the North American continent.

US History Encyclopedia:
Manifest Destiny

Top
In 1845 John L. O'Sullivan coined the term "manifest destiny" in reference to a growing conviction that the United States was preordained by God to expand throughout North America and exercise hegemony over its neighbors. In the United States Magazine and Democratic Review (July–August 1845, p. 5) he argued for "the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." Around the time of O'Sullivan's writing, the United States saw an extraordinary territorial growth of 1.2 million square miles, an enlargement of more than 60 percent. Most of this growth occurred at the expense of the newly independent Mexico and the Native American nations. The expansion happened at such an accelerated pace that people like O'Sullivan thought that even larger expansions were inevitable, necessary, and desirable—hence the origin of the concept of manifest destiny.

Manifest destiny was obviously a defense of what is now called Imperialism. It was a complex set of beliefs that incorporated a variety of ideas about race, religion, culture, and economic necessity. Some people, like the land speculators that settled in Florida, Texas, and Native American lands, wanted more land to get rich. Some fled poverty in Europe and eastern metropolitan centers. Some assumed that without spreading out to fresh lands the nation would languish. Some sought to perpetuate the institution of slavery by expanding it to new territories. Some believed that expansion into "uncivilized" regions would spread progress and democracy. It was convenient for all to think that they had the divine right to acquire and dominate because they had the proper economic system and the most developed culture and belonged to the most advanced race.

http://www.answers.com/topic/manifest-destiny

[EFerrari]

28. No kidding. This is new in the last week or so.

Someone must be desperate.

[Mojeoux]

45. We're all from Pangaea n/t

[troubledamerican]

48. By implication of this cartoon, Arizona is still fighting for "Manifest Destiny"

[SoCalDem]

59. People move.. always have, always will

The people who migrated out of Africa, the people who migrated across the Aleutians, the people who migrated across the Atlantic, the Pacific, etc.. People MOVE.

People who "claim this land in the name of", "gave/took" land they had no real right to, and then set out to sell or grant it to their buddies, in exchange for favors, benefits for themselves & their own families.

In the strict sense of things, it's not far removed from the example of a guy stealing a new Xbox from the back-seat of someone's car, and then "gifting" it to their own child. The kid receiving it, is loving it, but the person who bought the Xbox & is now missing it, is not all that thrilled with the plan.

[MellowDem]

63. Wrong, they were colonists/invaders and not the first at that. nt

[greencharlie]

66. crap.

How do you define it?

What is legal/illegal if there is no law?

If you're referring to the migration of peoples to different parts of the world...

then those Native Americans pictures were at one time immigrants.

The first North-American'ers came from all over Asia... from Siberia, experts say from China, the Aleutians, Polynesia... Native American tribes from the NW have Japanese origin, experts say...

So WHO did the land really belong to?

Those who were here first? Bad answer.

Like it or not... all nations on this planet were founded NOT by the first inhabitants... but by the rulers and the victors. I know it sounds unfair in 21st century nuance... but that's the way it is. North America is the way that it is... because of the European migration.

[William Z. Foster]

94. might makes right

Got it. The rulers and the victors.

Why do people not just then say this: "we don't want them here and since we have the power we are going to use it against them" and spare us all of the convoluted and disingenuous arguments to wade through?

[WillyT]

82. HUGE K & R !!!

:applause:

:kick:

[suston96]

90. There is quite a bit of proof......

....that we all came from here......

The Real Eve is the title of a popular science book written by Stephen Oppenheimer and a documentary based on the book.

The book is largely based on the "Out of Africa theory" of human origins. Oppenheimer uses information from various disciplines including genetics, archeology, anthropology and linguistics to synthesize theories on the origin of modern humans and their subsequent dispersal around the world.

The Eve in the title refers to Mitochondrial Eve, a name used for the most recent common ancestor of all humans in the matrilineal (mother to daughter) line of descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Eve

Also, Google "Real Eve" for these fascinating theories.