On Sep 22, 2:41*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Sep 22, 10:47*am, wrote:





On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:46:10 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:47*pm, wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...emarks-preside....

Were there really any "Mexicans" in DC way back then...?

Sheesh,

Maybe this can fill in the blanks. It is from "U.S. Latino Patriots:
From the "American Revolution to Afghanistan, An Overview." By Refugio
I. Rochin and Lionel Fernandez." Ever hear of Galveston? By the way,
there is a statue of General Galvez in D.C.. Isn't he in Mississippi's
version of the history of the Revolution? He fought in Mississippi
didn't he?

(Non sequitur "Hooray for Hispanics in (American) History" snipped)

First, Ha-ha-hee-hee-SNICKER-CHORTLE-SPLORKVANGMU!!

Second, the three contemporaneous Galvez were born in Spain and as Spaniards and
Peninsulares, they would have been offended even at the suggestion that they
were born in "New Spain" - "Mexico" didn't even exist as country when even
Bernardo was born. *"Mexico" would have been, to him, a mere
city/region/province, not an independent country. *The only people who may have
called themselves (a variant of) "Mexican" would not have been anywhere near DC
or even in what is now the US. *Moreover, he looked upon them as savages and
subjects, not equals, roughly equivalent to blacks, "Indians," etc.

And finally, the "idea" of "America" (as in New Spain) came from the Spanish
before there were any "Mexicans" (as in a casual term for citizens of the modern
country), and the same people who came up with the idea of "America" were, as
were the Galvez, very particular about NOT being born in "America" ("Mexico" or
anywhere else), but rather, in Spain. *Even those of the same general social
level who were born later, by necessity, in "New Spain" would not have
identified as "Mexicans" or even "New Spanish," but rather, as Spaniards who
happened to be born in New Spain. *And IAC, about the only people in all of
North or South America who were here "long before America was even an idea" were
the variety of locals dispersed throughout - there were little or no British,
French, Dutch, "Mexicans" and even few Spaniards themselves - and again, any of
those who _might_ have called themselves a variant of "Mexican" would not have
been in what is now the US.

What it _appears_ he means is the US-centric version: The United States of
America _is_ "America," ala the "American Ideal/Dream/etc.," but there he
especially fails because such an "idea" began not only long before there were
any "Mexicans," but long before there was any "New Spain," "Mexico," or idea of
"America" (i.e., an "America" in the New Spain sense that could have possibly
included "Mexicans," had "Mexico" as country in New Spain existed).

Perhaps only someone familiar with history and the Declaration of Independence
would be as amused as I am by a sitting POTUS who is an alleged constitutional
scholar and law professor not only saying this:

"So let me close by saying this. *Long before America was even an idea, this
land of plenty was home to many peoples. *To British and French, to Dutch and
Spanish, to Mexican -- (applause) -- to countless Indian tribes. *We all shared
the same land. *We didn’t always get along. *But over the centuries, what
eventually bound us together -- what made us all Americans -- was not a matter
of blood, it wasn’t a matter of birth. *It was faith and fidelity to the shared
values that we all hold so dear. *We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: *life and
liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

but the fact that his administration would put the above as the official WH
transcript and include the silly-assed rock concert applause when the
entertainer says the city ("Are you ready to ROCK, insert city name
here?!?!"). *It speaks volumes about this administration. *

Sheesh,
R
...to paraphrase, his ability to lead would not be in so much doubt had he not
been elected President, and, the more corrupt the Fed, the more laws it
wants...etc., etc., etc.....

I suggest you might find interesting the meetings and comments of
Francisco de Miranda on his meetings with Washington, Adams, Hamilton
etc etc, and the AMERICAN Hispanic Sephardic Jewish leaders in Philly
and New York in the mid 1780s. *On his visit to your alma mater, Yale,
Miranda attended a class in Hebrew. Could have sat in the same
classroom as you.

You know, "Miranda?" who captured Pensacola from the British and
helped drive the Brits from Natchez, MISSISSIPPI, with a mix of
Spanish, Mexican, Black and Native American troops?

He was a devotee of the "American idea." *Or is he verboten because he
was born in Caracas, Venezuela? And were Bernardo O'Higgins (born in
Chillan, Chile) and Jordi Farragut not both "Americans" in the
continental sense?

"Jordi Farragut joined his new country at the beginning of the
American Revolution, initially as a lieutenant in the South Carolina
Navy. He fought the British at Savannah and was captured in Charleston
- Siege of Charleston- in 1780. After being released in a prisoner
exchange, he fought as a volunteer at the Battle of Cowpens and
Wilmington." (Wiki)

I mean the man died in Pascagoula, Mississippi, surely that might
suggest he was an "American."

How about Ben Franklin, he was born in British Occupied Boston? He did
spend much of his adult life in Britain but heck, I still consider him
an "American."

RD by your parsing, none of the founding fathers were Americans.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Anyone engaged in this "debate" might be interested in having a look
at Gordon Wood's "The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin." Probably
not, though.

And that's a shame.

Anyone who does, might come away from the experience with at least a
vague notion that his or her own pet definitions are not necessarily
universal constants and that language is slippery not only by nature,
but also and very often by design. One shouldn't need to point out
that a given individual's agenda in linguistic usage does not
necessarily reflect that of all (or even any) of those who hear or
read what was said......but one obviously does need to. Nor should
one need to remind anyone that interpretations of what is said will
frequently (some would say invariably) vary widely from what the
author intended.....but one does. And in the instant case (as in so
many others) one should not need to dwell on the fact that such
interpretations are DELIBERATELY misinterpreted for reasons that are
nefarious, illogical, obvious, and sophomoric enough to be dismissed
as nothing other than the usual blather from a source that can be
counted on to be eminently dismissable immediately on identification.

g.
and you people STILL insist on arguing with this cracker!