Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The U.S. isn't a continent it's an individual country with an individual flag. Doesn't matter who flew what flag first anywhere. There were no native peoples. All of our ancestors migrated here from somewhere else.
LOL, I am pretty sure "Native American Indians" would give you a discussion on that .
There are plenty of non-white Americans -- some of them also veterans -- who would be offended to see a foreign flag flying above the American flag. Doesn't mean they want a white America.
I agree, that post was full of hyperbole.
Very loosely speaking it seems like Mexican are about the only group of people that I see flying the Mexican flag. It personally sorta annoys me a bit, not enough to say or doing anything, but I do feel slight annoyance at it. Truth be told. This in no way makes me a racist. It a national pride issue.
Of all of the ethic groups in this country they appear to be the only group that does it. I mean all the white European descendants here can trace their lineage back to Europe somewhere, do we see these groups flying flags other than the American flag. The southern areas some people fly the confederate flag, that being the exception as every other group doesn't.
“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 man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as 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, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul[sic] loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
“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 man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as 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, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul[sic] loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
That would be applicable if we had ever gained the America Roosevelt was trying to achieve.
But as my mother told me when I was an inquiring child in the 50s: "Honey, we can't be in their parade."
LOL, I am pretty sure "Native American Indians" would give you a discussion on that .
Let them try. There is no denying that their ancestors were immigrants also. They came over the Bering Strait. They weren't native to this country/continent.
Let them try. There is no denying that their ancestors were immigrants also. They came over the Bering Strait. They weren't native to this country/continent.
“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. ..."
Yah, TR was an interesting person. Sickly, but built himself up. Wealthy, hung around out West & learned to ride & shoot & etc. Bright, wrote books, active in environment, pro-Navy, pro-US expansion into Asia, pro-commerce. & shopped Korea (who had sworn loyalty to the US) to Imperial Japan:
"In this book I don’t so much write about Pearl Harbor, I only bring it up to say, what was the source of this explosion? Every divorce has a first kiss, I was looking for that first kiss...and I found that in the summer of 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt -- the Nobel Peace Prize Committee didn’t know, the Senate didn’t know -- agreed to a treaty where America and Japan would walk hand in hand onto the Asian continent to take it over. And Japan needed Korea as a springboard for that plan. Roosevelt in a secret treaty agrees to give Korea to Japan. He lights the match on this situation that Franklin Delano Roosevelt would later deal with in World War 2.
"Somebody said to me, ‘Mr. Bradley, you’re saying Theodore Roosevelt caused Pearl Harbor?’ Well, you know, history’s not that simple, but the problem in WW2 in the Pacific was Japan expanding, where did that begin? It began in July 1905 and the most famous man in the world, the man who was supposedly the honest broker between Japan and Russia said its fine with me. Why? Roosevelt thought that America could have its big stick in north Asia."
(My emphasis - I've mentioned this book before. Very interesting reading. & sheds light on the problem of very selective information - especially in regards to Korea, Japan, China - the KMT, Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese Communists & so forth. Well worth reading.)
& of course, when you get to the national identity of the US, TR is very unreconstructed. A reflection of his times, to be sure. But I'm not sure that the US today would countenance giving away a country to say - Pres. V. Putin of the CIS, with the understanding that the CIS would be our catspaw in the future in that country.
That would be applicable if we had ever gained the America Roosevelt was trying to achieve.
But as my mother told me when I was an inquiring child in the 50s: "Honey, we can't be in their parade."
doesn't mean that we cannot keep trying..........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bully ... bully!
