| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 22:01 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
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 loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
__________________
|
| Posted: 13 Jul 2007 01:29 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
I like that picture.
AWESOME, pour some sugar on me!
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 08:21 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 35
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
|
Can someone build a time machine or clone TR? PLEASE!
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 08:27 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 35
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
Also..I love that picture as well...
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 10:32 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 109
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
|
What? Danny hasn't posted yet?
|
| Posted: 20 Jul 2007 14:47 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
There can be only one.
__________________
|
| Posted: 21 Jul 2007 00:09 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
I like THAT picture.
|
| Posted: 23 Jul 2007 15:42 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 324
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
|
Quote:
"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 loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907 A-freakin'-men.
__________________Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
|
| Posted: 24 Jul 2007 14:41 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
Quote:
A-freakin'-men.
Lol!!
|
| Posted: 25 Apr 2009 23:25 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1
Join Date: Apr 2009
|
|
I don't totally agree with everything that our past president said, but he did have some good points.
|
| Posted: 26 Apr 2009 03:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 129
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
TR was a great man and had a great love for our Country but lets be careful he was a big advocate of the progressivism. TR and now both political party’s have moved to the mid to far right and bigger and bigger government has been the name of the game since then. Every decade, since TR, the government has taken every opportunity to grow bigger and control more (of our lives).
I am a big supporter of our country, (having served over 28 years in the US Army) and for the most part, of our government but our Founding Fathers wanted a Federal government just large enough to keep the State in-line (for Defense, collection of taxes etc) but not so big to become oppressive or of controlling our lives i.e. a nanny to us all.
Our Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution wanted us all to start out together but they, or the government, can not AND should not control or guarantee how we finish! That is why these tea parties are happening; to stop the governments growth and of taking more and more freedoms (control) from us. If a business fails, let it fail, if not, then which ones should be saved? And then end buying, working for or supporting just the business’s they have allowed to survive. Again, let us be careful because if we lose control, we will all have to pay dearly before we will get these freedoms back.
And now back to our story...
|
| Posted: 26 Apr 2009 21:14 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Meh, it sounds like a bit of rhetoric from 1907.
In 1907, the unquestioned Anglosaxon nature of the United States was that such a statement seemed fairly inocuous.
We are no longer a white nation. We are no longer an english nation. We are an American nation, forged of it's own history and nolonger beholden to the ancestors of powerful men. Being American has nothing to do with the languages you speak, or the history you share with your family. I prefer to think that An American is any man who wishes first and formost to be free.
If we all spoke french it would make us no less Americans, if we all woshiped Allah it would make us no less Americans.
In fact, I will go one further, those that make the idea that only english or only this type of person is America is what fuels the desire for others to add their supperlatives.
To say, there are only Americans is fine, until you start saying, that means you must do these things that are the American things to do. Better I think it is to let democracy and the market decide our language and our culture. Let those who speak Spanish or Mandarin, or Hindi do so, and let the nation grow in its diversity of voice and opinion, in the end the language that communicates to the most most effectivly will win out, and I have every faith that it will be english, and if it's not, then how are we any less Americans? If our freedoms cary through and the common parlance is spanish or tagalog, are our freedoms any less American? Were they any less American in those midwestern towns where German was the common parlance in 1907? Would it be any less American then the lower east side, where Yidish was written on every sign, and spoken in every shop in 1907?
T.R. is a product of his time and environment, and time and envirionment long since and rightly past. He had some good ideas, such as the limitation of corporate power, and a square deal for all Americans, though at this time it is his views on immigration that have been highlighted.
If you praise T.R. do you praise him in whole or just in that area where he agrees with you?
I would hate to live in any period of this nation prior to the moment I know (just as I am sure one from 1907 would likewise dislike the world we live in today). The America I know has evolved and changed since 1776, and will continue to do so through 2776 and beyond.
So long as our ideals of freedom and equality remain we will be America. But when we start saying, freedom is only for those we deem worthy, then we stop being America and start being every other nation on the globe.
|
| Posted: 27 Apr 2009 00:49 Last Edited By: pingclang |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 164
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
If that was said by a president, or any official for that matter, nowadays, he would be called a racist and a biggot. I think the man is a genius and speaking the God truth. This country is full of immigrants speaking so many different languages, its insane. Now, I understand speaking your language and all, but do it in your own home, cuz outside closed doors you`re an American, speak and act like it. Yeah, you have freedoms here, but you also have things to uphold as a citizen.
I don`t mean to preach and I don`t mean to climb the soapbox, but dang-it this is America, people, AMERICA. She`s not just some nation. Hold her up and love her with all your heart and do your best to live up to what the men of the past have given you by their blood, sweat and tears.
Again, sorry if I anger anyone, but then again no I`m not, because it must be said. I`d rather live one day as a lion, than 100 years as a lamb. God bless.
|
| Posted: 27 Apr 2009 03:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
I don't know the Cherokee word for illegal immigrant, but I'm sure they'd agree there are too damn many immigrants in this country speaking all sorts of nonesense languanges.
Here's the thing, in this whole hyphenated American debate that T.R. thrust himself into a hundred years ago. His take is that the English American, His Americans, are the real americans. The culture that they brought over from Europe that they never got rid of, that's the Real America and everyone else better hope on board with his culture or they aren't real Americans.
English is a great languange, and it's the dominate language for a reason, but it's no more a part of America than is Baseball or Apple Pie. They are nice things that are popular, but another better thing, say football and chocolate cake can come along and take their spot. That is democracy, that is the free market, that is what makes this nation great.
|
| Posted: 27 Apr 2009 16:14 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I actually have quite a few Cherokee in my family ancestry. I guess I don't have enough Indian in me to get my hands on that casino dough though. Doh!
I got to disagree with you dude on the English thing. I think to imply we should all be speaking more than one language creates chaos. You know like the tower of babel. Communication is key for any civilization to thrive and it is much easier to achieve progress when a society speaks one language.
Just my opinion. If anybody knows how much of a Cherokee you have to be to get paid casino dough please let me know. My great grandma was mostly Cherokee, and my Grandpa on the other side was a lot Cherokee so I think I deserve something. Or was it my great great grandma? I have to ask my mom again.
__________________
|
| Posted: 27 Apr 2009 18:46 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 571
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Tim, I think you only have to be 1/16 native american to own a casino. When I lived in Orange County, there was guy next door (he also owned the building) who owned a casino in Palm Springs, his last name was Fasio and he didn't look native american at all. Check it out, but I think that is all you have to be.
|
| Posted: 27 Apr 2009 19:11 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
My point Tim, is that some how over the last 200 years, we've had many differnt languages spoken actively as the primary language in various parts of the country.
At one point in history, as I said, German was the language spoken in many towns across the midwest. Legal documents were in German, and most town business was conducted in German. These towns might still be German speaking had 1918 not rolled around.
These towns and other towns and neighboroods across this country had a language other than english as the primary language spoken, and it has never caused a problem for the nation.
People worry about it, but that worry is unfounded. Through out the history of this nation no matter how many immigrants come into our nation, no matter what languages and histories they bring with them, the nation has done just fine.
I've been to Canada enough to know this fear is not unique to the US or even related to race (The French are the evil unpatriotic sorts up there). But in the end, either we are a free democracy, or we aren't. If enough citizens in a town decide that they want services offered in spanish, or even to make spanish the language of the town, what business of that is ours?
|
| Posted: 27 Apr 2009 20:02 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 757
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Immigrants made the US and Canada (took the land from Native America), but the US constitution doesn't say you have to learn english, it's helpful since a lot of people speak it (Orwell's book, 1984, said something about foreign languages, and some stuff about english). Some people can continue living in US and Canada without learning english, my grandmother was one of them.
I just wanted to paraphrase a comedian about Canada, ... Canada is special, we managed to live with the french. We all can use a laugh.
|
| Posted: 27 Apr 2009 21:51 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Tim, I think you only have to be 1/16 native american to own a casino.
1/16th, hmm I got to look this up. I could be rich. Speak whatever you want people, I'll hire me an interpreter. 
__________________
|
| Posted: 30 Apr 2009 00:08 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
Quote:
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language
Tsk, Tsk. I wish that were true, we went to the 1 true language to to like 15.
|
| Posted: 30 Apr 2009 04:35 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
In any other country the demand is that you speak the language of the land. On a trip back to England, two girlfriends in Birmingham told me of a Pakistani family in their neighbourhood went to the local school and 'asked' that their be teachers that spoke Pakistani in the school (there are a lot of Pakistanis and Muslims in Birmingham. They were told politely but emphatically that English was the language of the land and that it is English used in school.
I may not approve of everything that TR stood for but he was still way better than Woodrow Wilson and his cousin FDR. Did you know that the army was an integrated army until Woodrow Wilson signed an executive order segregating the races in the army?
And if you take current events, it was our former President who said in a speech paraphrased from his address to Congress just after 911 that Islam is a good and honourable faith and we must take care NOT to equate the act of evil men with that faith. And in the furour over how terrorists were imprisoned, what President interned a whole race of people as we entered WW II? I don't hear that brought up.
By the way, I LOVE the picture!
Estsanatlehi
|
| Posted: 30 Apr 2009 21:40 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
I guess to the first point, with regard to what the Queen and her ilk demand of her subjects, I kind of thought we escaped that system a while back and see no reason to re-embrace her tounge as anything other than a facilitator for trade.
As to no one mentioning the internment of Japanese Americans during world war II (and a couple of Germans and Italians as well, just not on that major of a scale). I do think people bring it up on a fairly regular basis, but Roosevelt's other accomplishments kind of overshadow his failures. Sort of like Lincoln and the suspension of habeas corpus, no one denies that what he did was wrong, but it's still o.k. to honor the man for his other accomplishments.
Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears is another example. We don't deny his actions, but we aknowledge his contributions to the nation outside of that failure and that's why he's on the $20.
For poor old G.W.Bush he has no real successes to pin his legecy on, so his failures wind up being a bigger deal. You can say he kept us safe from terrorism for eight years, but he did so through the use of unwarranted wiretaps and torture. His one big success is tied to his failure so he get's a little harsher treatment than other presidents.
Nixon gets a similar rough treatment as well. His opening of China, and his efforts to enhance civil rights likewise overshadowed by the unpopular war he escalated, and the criminal activities of his underlings.
The moral lesson there is, if you are going to screw things up, it's best to make sure you have something really huge and wonderful to overshadow it. Otherwise all people remember is how you screwed up.
|
| Posted: 30 Apr 2009 21:46 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
In all fairness I don't think we tortured anybody the way the enemy did. We didn't cut anybody's head off, or anything. So a guy who cut off somebody's head got some water up his nose. Big deal. If I was in charge he'd get more than that. Hanging is too good for that sort of murderer.
__________________
|
| Posted: 30 Apr 2009 22:14 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Yeah, I don't know Tim. Waterboarding isn't quite the same thing as getting water up ones nose. Nor do I think we should be useing the shortest stick available to measure our own morality. Nazi's had death camps, does that really excuse our relocation camps?
There is nothing wrong with torture, countries have used it for centuries, and much like genocide, another thing countries have used to get their way for centuries, it's something the U.S. has done in the past.
There are two question here One, is it even effective, and the second is, even if it is do we really want to be "That country"?
Certainly you can get your way in the short term with the use of unquestioned military power and ethically ambiguous behavior, but do you want to be that kind of country.
As to our ehanced interigation, there is conflicting reports as to whether or not we got anything usefull, and even if we did get anything usefull most professional interogators state that you could have gotten as much if not more using normal interogation techniques.
Personally, I don't think it was any great sin on an individual level what we put these people through, but because we did do it, we lose the moral authority to declare others evil. Since we took the morally ambiguous road, so to do others justify their actions.
I am sure that during WWII, and the Civil War, and Every armed conflict from Afgahnistan back to the revolution that some actions were taken that might be called torture. The differnce being, much like it was with Nixon and Bush, if the activities they condone are the exception, or the rule.
If torture becomes the rule, then you become a country that tortures. That your torture isn't as bad as other nations version of torture is kind of like being the worlds tallest midget. It's a matter of pride but a rather weak accomplishment.
|
| Posted: 30 Apr 2009 22:23 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I think the problem really is a one size fits all kind of outlook. You can't never say you'll never cross the line when prisoners, if the prisoner is a scum bag and knows information that will keep grandma alive back home. I'd be the first one to condemn somebody for torturing just for some sort of sick pleasure. Kind of like the way cops use stun guns on everybody for just about everything. That's the kind of torture we need to be looking at.
Bottom line it's not about keeping some kind of moral authority. It's about keeping the other guys from killing us. I mean they want to kill us. We can't just go play patty cake with them. Not to sound like a smarty pants.
You should come to http://reallypolitical.com/. Great political discussions.
__________________
|
| Posted: 01 May 2009 03:48 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
I fully admit I am prejudiced where 9/11 is concerned on two fronts.
First, my cousin was supposed to go to CA to teach a seminar on one of the Boston flights. He came down with the flu so he wasn't on the flight.
Second, my late husband and stepdaughter went to England to visit family. Whilst they were at the Beatles museum, is when Peter caught word of the Trade Ctr. They were stranded in England until the Monday when the first flights were released back to America. I was at Logan when they arrived and I will never forget the look on people's faces as they came into the lobby. Some people stopped short of falling to the floor and kissing it for coming back safe. Some came through the doors looking dazed and shell shocked and I saw grown men barely keep from crying for disbelief at coming home safe. I thought Peter was going to crush my ribs; that told me how nervous he had been as if the phone calls we had had not told me of his worries.
So I really don't have a lot of sympathy for people who were shooting at us and are putting together more plots to kill innocent people en masse.
We worked with the Mujahadin against the Soviets in Afghanistan and left them to their own country; no occupation there. We fought in Kuwait as part of a UN coalition and stopped where we were supposed to. No occupation there. We only went into Iraq after months of trying to get the UN to enforce THEIR resolutions. Prior to 9/11 we did not invade anyone and occupy anyone. We certainly did not do anything to justify the first Trade Ctr bombing, the Cole, the second Trade Ctr bombing.
There are no simple answers. I'm sure President Truman had many sleepless nights both before and after the atomic bombs were dropped. I can only speak from my own experience.
I apologise for the soapbox. I told you it was personal.
Estsantlehi
|
| Posted: 01 May 2009 14:24 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 322
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
Well, I've sat quietly back just reading the statements on this message but feel it's time to ad my two cents.
We as a nation are dealing with an enemy who would like nothing better than to wipe our country(people)off of the face of the earth simply because we are different.I don't agree with torture for the sake of torture but at the same time we must at least deal with it realistically.
F.D.R. who has been mentioned a few times here tried to keep his promise to the American people about keeping us out of what became World War II and wound up seeing our Naval fleet all but wiped out at Pearl.Do we really need to repeat history and wait until a more severe attack is made on this nation before we start letting our military forces fight this war as a war and quit trying to be the nice guys, who will definately finish last?
|
| Posted: 01 May 2009 17:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 757
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Talking with some friends, and this came up. Solution: Nuke 'em into the Stone age. Divide and rule. USA has the weapons, nukes, people, and time to take over the world.
Then, do you think those people want to destroy us because we're different? I believe they just wanted to assert their power, their affluent, like a spoiled kid wanting attention. Plus, America is big guy, big power, and we're brought up on stories of the underdog, the little people, down with establishment, etc.
Years ago, I met an immigrant from Iraq, he said, "I like it here because over there, 10 percent of the people have all the power". Hello, same thing over here. But here, you get public school, cable, good hospital, schools and a nice house to raise your family.
Also, that 'Hate America' was a rallying cry to unite people. The Shah used it to get supporters, start a revolution and put him and his people into power. America left them alone, and now they're trying to start something with Iran.
Yet, we know this, they don't. Hopefully we can be the bigger man in this event.
|
| Posted: 03 May 2009 02:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 757
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Getting my facts mixed up, Ayatollah who rallied his people with that 'hate America' propaganda in Iran (I get mixed up Iraq and Iran), back in the early 80s, to put him and his people into power. After that, America left them alone, he tried to rally his people with that 'hate the book', then got into a war with Iraq.
This all boils down to 'have and have-nots'. Have-nots want to be haves, and haves, just don't want to lose what they have.
|
| Posted: 04 May 2009 23:50 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
Quote:
In any other country the demand is that you speak the language of the land
That's the point, we get involved in so many wars, innocent people half to go to a differnent country, the #1 choice is America.
|
|
|
