And speaking of history....

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:

(More of "Da Sarge's History o' Hispanics" sni-i-i-pped)

So, when does Gerard Depardieu discover America...?

Sheesh,
R
....and just how does rich Corinthian leather figure into all of this...?

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,
R

So the man missed that his speech writers used the title "Mexicans"
instead of the perhaps more correct " Hispanics" - BFD. I'm not an
Obama fan, but your sinking to such a level of nit picking and
spending so much verbiage defending that position is ridiculous.

Bob Weinberger

wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...-33rd-annual-a

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

If I wanted silly, anti-Obama quibbling about nonsense I'd tune
into Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

Do you have any idea how stupid and petty you look when you post
crap like this ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bob 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,
R

So the man missed that his speech writers used the title "Mexicans"
instead of the perhaps more correct " Hispanics" - BFD. I'm not an
Obama fan, but your sinking to such a level of nit picking and
spending so much verbiage defending that position is ridiculous.

Oops, nope - here's the entire paragraph (again):

"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."

"Hispanics" would not have been "more correct." "Hispanic" as you _seem_ to
define it is a term that has reached its "modern" US definition only in the last
few decades. Do you happen to notice any folks who might be missing from his
lil' ol' list? And might you happen to know why that particular group, some
15-20% of the population, was "sharing the land?" Ah, well, I guess he and his
speechwriters were saving mention of that group for some other
gala..."(applause)," indeed...

HTH,
R
....and you might wish to compare his quoting of the D of I versus the actual
language...

HTH,
R

Bob Weinberger

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:07:49 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...-33rd-annual-a

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

If I wanted silly, anti-Obama quibbling about nonsense I'd tune
into Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

Do you have any idea how stupid and petty you look when you post
crap like this ?

OK, I'll guess - not nearly as stupid and petty as he looks when he says crap
like this, but in his defense, he still doesn't look anywhere near as stupid and
petty as you do when you defend him for saying crap like this...

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
If I wanted silly, anti-Obama quibbling about nonsense I'd tune
into Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

Do you have any idea how stupid and petty you look when you post
crap like this ?

OK, I'll guess - not nearly as stupid and petty as he looks when he says crap
like this, but in his defense, he still doesn't look anywhere near as stupid and
petty as you do when you defend him for saying crap like this...

I'm not defending Obama, Obama doesn't need defending from
the piddly-**** stupidity you post here.

Face the facts, Obama is smarter than you, can hit a higher
percentage of free throws than you, is better looking than
you and he's the President of the United States. Get used
to it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sep 22, 4:32*pm, wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:47*pm, wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...emarks-preside....

"Hispanics" would not have been "more correct." *"Hispanic" as you _seem_ to
define it is a term that has reached its "modern" US definition only in the last
few decades.

So tell me Oh great etymologist, what would be the proper term to use
to describe people who's heritage comes from the Iberian Peninsula
(Hispania) when talking about them to a group here and now.

Bob Weinberger

On Sep 22, 12:47*pm, 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.....

Thus demonstrating that anyone who says idiocy cannot be an art form
is an idiot.

g.

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!

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:01:35 -0700 (PDT), Bob wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:32*pm, wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:47*pm, wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...emarks-preside...

"Hispanics" would not have been "more correct." *"Hispanic" as you _seem_ to
define it is a term that has reached its "modern" US definition only in the last
few decades.

So tell me Oh great etymologist, what would be the proper term to use
to describe people who's heritage comes from the Iberian Peninsula
(Hispania) when talking about them to a group here and now.

Human beings?

His failure with this and my criticism of it is not related to any of that. He
specifically said "Mexican" at a function held by a group who self-labels as
"Hispanic," where the primary likely membership is of "Mexican" (the modern,
post-"idea of America" political state) heritage AND in the same sentence, left
out some 15-20% of the contemporaneous population, in which he and his
supporters tout his inclusion.

Read the whole speech. For example:

"I also want to acknowledge and thank all of the outstanding Latino leaders
serving across my administration because I am proud that the number of Latinos
I’ve nominated to Senate-confirmed positions at this point far exceeds any
administration in history. (Applause.) And I’m especially proud that a whole
bunch of them are Latinas. (Applause.) And as I’ve said before, one of my
proudest moments of my presidency was the day Justice Sonia Sotomayor swore an
oath -- (applause) -- and ascended to our nation’s highest court, and sparked
new dreams for countless young girls all across America."

contrasted with:

"There’s no doubt the debate over how to fix all this has been a fractured and
sometimes painful one in this country. And let’s face it, there are some who
seek political advantage in distorting the facts and in dividing our people.
We’ve seen it before. Some take advantage of the economic anxiety that people
are feeling to stoke fear of those who look or think or worship differently --
to inflame passions between 'us' and 'them.'

I have news for those people: It won’t work. There is no 'us' and 'them.' In
this country, there is only 'us.' (Applause.) There is no Latino America or
black America or white America or Asian America. There is only the United
States of America -- all of us. (Applause.) All of us joined together.
Indivisible."

If the latter is true, then why is the former even worth mentioning? If he
truly subscribes to the latter, he didn't nominate/appoint Latinos or Latinas,
he appointed "Americans."

The bottom line is that is was nothing more than hypocritical, ugly and divisive
political pandering in a desperate attempt to win votes, purposefully ignoring
(broad) history. And when put up with his speech at the Black Caucus event,
they are all the moreso. And if he had been a "white" pol at a "white"
organization's gala and said much of this, the same folks that defend him would
have attempted to crucify him. And also shameful is his "alteration" of the D
of I. I don't personally subscribe to the whole "creator" idea myself, but it
says what it says and it should be quoted as written.

As to "Hispanic" in the historical sense, at least for me, that is an
interesting sidebar to this topic, or really, another topic brought up by the
original. "Hispanic" would be an accurate term to describe such people as you
describe. I am of just such an origin and I self-identify as having "Hispanic"
ancestry for the reason you describe. And I have relatives who are "Mexican,"
(as the term applies to the political state citizenship versus ancestral origin)
but are of the same "Hispanic" origin - they carry a Mexican passport and
consider themselves of Hispanic origin. However, "Mexican" and/or "Hispanic"
is/are not the correct word(s) to use to describe those here "long before
America was even an idea." But he wasn't speaking to folks who self-identify
as "Hispanic" because of distant ancestry on the Iberian Peninsula. And again,
what about the 20% of the population left out?

IAC, the vast majority of "Mexicans" do not self-identify as "Hispanic" because
of having ancestors they can trace to pre-Spanish "Hispania," they are either of
"local," "Spanish" or a mixed heritage. This is not to say that they don't have
such "Hispanic" ancestry, but rather, that they cannot identify it as such.
Obviously, those from other geographic regions now in Mexico are excluded. Those
from the general region of the Iberian Peninsula who came to the "new world"
from the Iberian Peninsula at the presumable time of which Obama spoke, "before
America was even an idea," were either _Spanish_ or _Portuguese_ (IOW, Spain and
Portugal were distinct countries by the time of the incursions into the "new
world"), with those going to Mexico being Spanish. The "Spanish" considered
themselves "Spanish," but interestingly, the highest-caste members did consider
themselves "Peninsulares," ala the Iberian Peninsula ("Spain" was relatively new
as an country at the time). However, most primarily intermarried among other
such families - even most of the "criollos"/"Creoles" in the mix were the
children of Peninsulares and had the "clean/pure blood" of their ancestors, with
clean/pure meaning Catholic Iberian - even non-Iberian or non-Catholic royalty
would have been "unclean"/"impure," akin to today's British monarchy and
Catholics (Catholics and those married to Catholics cannot become King/Queen,
regardless of other factors of birth - if Prince William married a Catholic,
he's out and if his kids were also Catholic, they're out).

Obviously, there were children born of "unsanctioned" relationships and a
criollo could have "native" blood and still be a Criollo (but would never be
considered exactly equal to a Criollo of "clean blood" by those of "clean
blood"). Be careful when reading history, as someone being identified as a
"criollo"/"Criollo"/"Creole"/"creole" could have a number of meanings, depending
upon who was doing the writing and for what purpose. For example, the children
of Peninsulares who happened to be born a "Criollo" and described as such could,
and likely would, be a mere statement of fact, whereas someone contextually
described as "of criollo blood" could have an entirely different meaning. And a
Creole could have been described as owning a creole slave, with the slave making
creole baskets - all with three different meanings as to "Creole/creole." And
as a personal note, I don't condone any of it, nor do I suggest a return in any
form to it, I'm just explaining the way it was.

Now, IMO, expecting such distinction - Criollo, Spanish, Portuguese, the Iberian
Peninsula, etc. - is being picky and I would not expect Obama or his writers to
make such contextually-trivial distinctions in such a gala speech, nor would I
expect them to have even an off-hand knowledge of such historic "trivia." But
again, that is not upon which my criticism of his speech is based.

TC,
R

Bob Weinberger