Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on February 03, 2006, 12:30:44 AM
-
Teddy had it so right! Not Kennedy, but Roosevelt!
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
-
T.R. was a great man that I have admired for many years. He was a progresive thinker who would have never made it in todays political arena. That says more about our modern system than it does about the man.
-
that was almost 100 years ago ...
yep I think some things have changed since then, just a few
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that was almost 100 years ago ...
yep I think some things have changed since then, just a few
Yep and not all for the better either.
-
I kinda like this one...
"No man can lead a public career really worth leading, no man can act with rugged independence in serious crises, nor strike at great abuses, nor afford to make powerful and unscrupulous foes, if he is himself vulnerable in his private character."
If only the current crop of politicians would embrace this thinking....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Teddy had it so right! Not Kennedy, but Roosevelt!
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Interesting how one would define "American" in 1907.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that was almost 100 years ago ...
yep I think some things have changed since then, just a few
What has changed so much that immigrants shouldn't assimilate to being an American?
Besides if one country was bad enough to leave, then why group together and set up little versions of that same country here?
-
So as to replicate only the good aspects of it.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Besides if one country was bad enough to leave, then why group together and set up little versions of that same country here?
They are not fleeing their culture but the government or country conditions. You would be hard pressed to take away anyone's culture.
I don't see a problem with it as long as they learn English, respect American customs and obey U.S. laws. That's where the trouble starts.
-
Kalifornia will turn into American Quebec!:eek: :eek: :O :O
PS, LA is still ctrled by Asians and Armenians:p
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Interesting how one would define "American" in 1907.
And just how would that be?
-
Originally posted by moot
So as to replicate only the good aspects of it.
Ahhhh you mean like the Italians did with "Little Italy" and the Mafia.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
What has changed so much that immigrants shouldn't assimilate to being an American?
Besides if one country was bad enough to leave, then why group together and set up little versions of that same country here?
it's called diversity and multiculturalism. It's the PC talk of the 21st century and is the cornerstorn of most American Universities. Basically the way I see it is kids today are told to celebrate their differences instead of their comonalities.
-
wasnt teddy all for the extermination of the american indians?
I don't think he qualifies as any kind of spokesman for the American way.. now or then...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
wasnt teddy all for the extermination of the american indians?
I don't think he qualifies as any kind of spokesman for the American way.. now or then...
No, that's really quite absurd... Please read a bit about Roosevelt before making such trollish comments.:rolleyes:
In 1913 a self-titled plainsman named Robert Wright wrote a book containing as much fiction as fact. The book was titled:
DODGE CITY, THE COWBOY CAPITAL and THE GREAT SOUTHWEST
in The Days of The Wild Indian, the Buffalo, the Cowboy, Dance Halls, Gambling Halls, and Bad Men
BY
ROBERT M. WRIGHT
Plainsman, Explorer, Scout, Pioneer, Trader and Settler
Wright loved to glorify the cowboy as the great figure that settled the west.
In his book, he wrote:
"Theodore Roosevelt gave an address, once, up in South Dakota, which is readable in connection with the subject in hand. "My friends seem to think," said Roosevelt, "that I can talk only on two subjects-the bear and the cowboy-and the one I am to handle this evening is the more formidable of the two. After all, the cowboys are not the ruffians and desperadoes that the nickel library prints them. Of course, in the frontier towns where the only recognized amusements are vices, there is more or less of riot and disorder. But take the cowboy on his native heath, on the round-up, and you will find in him the virtues of courage, endurance, good fellowship, and generosity. He is not sympathetic. The cowboy divides all humanity into two classes, the sheep and the goats, those who can ride bucking horses and those who can't; and I must say he doesn't care much for the goats.
"I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Take three hundred low families of New York and New Jersey, support them, for fifty years, in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the 'cowboys who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers of the plains. As for the soldiers, an Indian chief once asked Sheridan for a cannon. 'What! do you want to kill my soldiers with it?' asked the general. 'No,' replied the chief, 'Want to kill cowboy; kill soldier with a club.'"
The only problem with this is that Roosevelt strongly denied having ever said this shortly after Wright's book was published.
Since that time, this fabricated quote has been used to show that Roosevelt wanted to eradicate the American Indian. A rediculous contention in light of Roosevelt's actual position on indians. TR stated that every indian should have the same rights to own land as did the homesteaders; 160 acres for every man who applied for it, be they white, red or black. However, he did not believe that the indian tribes had rights to the western lands beyond this.
My regards,
Widewing
-
of course he would deny it.
I think you proved my point - thanks
-
He contradicts himself in the first sentence.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed.."
Typical nonsensical political "vote for me" rhetoric. If you don't think about what he says, it makes sense.
Forced conformity, or "assimilation" is unamerican. The ATF might disagree with me.
-
I like his sense of humor though. "When immigrants come to america they should forsake their foreign tongues and speak the language of the land... English!"
Kind of like the propoganda we were taught in elementary school in the early 80s.
"Colombus was the first person to discover america, and he called the people living in america indians, because he thought he was in india."
That one never gets old.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
of course he would deny it.
I think you proved my point - thanks
He denied it because at the time he was supposedly speaking in South Dakota, he was at his home on Long Island.....
Your point was absurd and unprovable because it is unsupported by any facts.
Again, educate yourself about Roosevelt and then you'll be better able to discuss those things you don't like about the man. Most people simply do not understand how great an influence TR was in his day, nor do they understand how is influence affects their lives even today. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, and worked around a stubborn congress to create our vast national park system. Then there's the Panama Canal. The list of his accomplishments is staggering.
While you contemplate TR, remember also that there was a vastly different culture in this country when he was President. Even as late as the middle 1900s, TR was still considered a radically progressive thinker on social and ecological issues.
With regard to his opinion of American Indians, did you know that Chiricahua Apache Chief Geronimo rode in Roosevelt's 1905 inaugural parade and was his guest at the inaugural ball? Four other prominent Chiefs rode in the parade as well. His critics thought this nothing more than a political stunt. However, Roosevelt very much admired these men and he especially liked the Apache Chief, whom he called a "great leader to his people". They exchanged letters until Geronimo's death in 1909.
My regards,
Widewing
-
TR was my favorite president. I believe that he is correct about assimilation. My grandfather came here from scotland as a boy with his father. they did everything they could to lose the accent because.... even tho they were white... they were slaves the moment they opened their mouth. They worked in coal mines as vitual slaves... no... worse... slaves were treated better because slaves were owner operator and scotts were just rentals.
Grandfather dumped his accent and moved to Iowa and then kalifornia.
No one is asking immigrants to give up their culture so much as thier idea of how laws and government should be... they hated their laws and police and governments and yet... they come here and try to turn this country into the same sort of craphole they left.
It is like the people who say communism works and that it just hasn't been done right yet... those people are not welcome so far as I am concerned.
Immigrants should embrace our language and our laws and the meaning of our constitution.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
of course he would deny it.
I think you proved my point - thanks
Translation:
"My mind is made up, don't try to confuse me with facts that say otherwise". :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Translation:
"My mind is made up, don't try to confuse me with facts that say otherwise". :rolleyes:
widewing said it himself:
"TR stated that every indian should have the same rights to own land as did the homesteaders; 160 acres for every man who applied for it, be they white, red or black. However, he did not believe that the indian tribes had rights to the western lands beyond this."
now tell me again how much this rough rider loved the indians?
loved them enough to take their land (hint: how was this done? - peacefully? don't think so) and then allow them to sign up (think the average injun could figure that out?) so the US gov could give them a pitance of land, all the while they were being round up and stuck on reservations...
and yes the parades were political IMO
ps
he was correct in stating that anyone living in america should speak english. that was my point, many do not feel that way anymore - it is not PC and is another way "diversity" is killing this country
-
Their land? How was it "their land"? They took it from each other by force of arms. TR was gonna give the weak a better shot at owning land than they ever had as tribespeople. Their was no land ownership in the American indian culture.
lazs
-
"[The Sand Creek Massacre was] as righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier."
Theodore Roosevelt
Sand Creek Massacre (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=698687)
TR was not a friend of the american indians
whoever thinks he was should:
"Again, educate yourself about Roosevelt and then you'll be better able to discuss those things you don't like about the man. "
see pages 10 and 11 in James Bradley's Flyboy
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"[The Sand Creek Massacre was] as righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier."
Theodore Roosevelt
Sand Creek Massacre (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=698687)
TR was not a friend of the american indians
whoever thinks he was should:
"Again, educate yourself about Roosevelt and then you'll be better able to discuss those things you don't like about the man. "
see pages 10 and 11 in James Bradley's Flyboy
With regard to the Sand Creek Massacre, I cannot locate where TR made the reported statement. TR is frequently quoted out of context by ignorant or unscrupulous writers to support their agenda.
For example, TR is often slammed for referring to Indians as "Lazy" and "drunken beggars". If read within its context, you see that TR is describing how "backwoodsmen" viewed the Indians.
TR wrote in Volume two of Winning The West:
"To them he was in peace a lazy, dirty, drunken beggar, whom they despised, and yet whom they feared; for the squalid, contemptible creature might at any moment be transformed into a foe whose like there was not to be found in all the wide world for ferocity, cunning, and blood-thirsty cruelty."
Yet, one author wrote the following, which indicates either remarkable stupidity or a clear cut attempt to deliberately misquote:
"In his book, "The Winning of the West," the American hero and Bigot Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the Indian was a lazy, dirty, drunken beggar, whom the frontiersman despised and yet whom they feared; for the squalid contemptible creature might at any moment be transformed into a foe whose like was not to be found in all the wide world for ferocity, cunning, and bloodthirsty cruelty. Theodore Roosevelt's last term ended in 1909. I am willing to bet that Congress had no intention of correcting this racist view"
It's quite amazing how people will distort facts to support an argument or simply libel the dead. The above is textbook example of taking a section of text and contorting it to suit one's agenda.
I've read Flyboys and found Bradley to be remarkably nearsighted in his analysis of the Roosevelt vis-a-vis his thoughts on the Japanese evils and those done to the American Indian. Bradley's argument is fundamentally flawed as is much of his reasoning. The book is loaded with contridictions and self-righteous bombast. Seriously, Bradley seems to justify Japanese atrocities by comparing them to what happened to the American Indians in the preceeding two centuries. Such an argument is untenable. He also refers to the four presidents portrayed on Mt. Rushmore as "white supremacists", which was not lost on many critics of Flyboys.
I have little regard for Bradley, who cannot write on historical events without framing it within his own social-political agenda.
You cannot measure historical figures by modern standards of social morals. Historical persons were creatures of their times, and should be judged according to the social standards of those times.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Bradley is a fruitcake
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You cannot measure historical figures by modern standards of social morals. Historical persons were creatures of their times, and should be judged according to the social standards of those times.
My regards,
Widewing
Absolutely positively 100% correct.
Also remember the Native Americans in those times were viewed by and large the same as the muslims are now.
Also to note that many of the writers of the time, and the newspaper writers in particular never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.
If it sounded good to them thats what they wrote.
There was far less fact checking by outside parties or accountability then there is now. And there isnt much accountability now.
TR was a remarkable man no doubt. Hard to beleive he started out a a sickly weakling as a child. And we owe alot of what we have and are as a nation to him.
One of my favorite quotes about him was made by some of the people that helped him into office figuring he would be willing to dance on their strings
"The SOB. We bought him and then he didnt stay bought."
Teddy always did things his own way.
-
I want to be a hermit.
-
Widewing, well said sir, twice!
I had no idea you were that well read on the subject.
I'm not, but I admit that I'm not an expert.
Eagler, so you and a bunch of your family ride over & kick me & my family out of our houses. Set up house there yourself. How does that give you ownership?
At best all you can be said to be doing is squatting. You don't have clear title, you pay no taxes, your merely in possion.
The indian had no concept of land ownership, which was in many ways a good thing. How can a single person own the sky, the air, the land which stretches boundless around us??
We can use "some" of this view in this day and age.
Yet this view also kept the indian nomadic and tied to the same level of education and ability for 1000's of years.
Yes some of what happened to the Indian in the US was wrong. It was also as invietable as death and taxes. Geghis Khan was wrong also, yet I don't hear every russian & european clamoring for retribution from him?
Go to any state with more than a single Indian Reservation.
Go from town to town outside those reservations and you'll get an ear full.
North to South, East to West, only the details and the climate change.
The problems are similar thoughout, just as they were in TR's day.
Ohhh and yes, I'm part Indian myself.