Thoughts

by

History of America, Chapter 1 — Who Came First?


Your average high school history book awards this idea to the Spanish in the form of Christopher Columbus, who was actually an Italian for Genoa.

The location of the first settlement is actually in Salem New Hampshire at a site known as “America’s Stonehenge.” This site is dated at about 4000 years old. But who occupied the site is unknown. Its contruction leads anthropologists and historians to compare it to the Stonehenge in England. But even in England the builders are unknown. As easily as it could have been Saxons in the area, it could also have been a Nordic people who were regular raiders and occupiers. We just do not know.

Now we need to look at Greenland where it is believed Europeans first settled this island 2500 years ago. Greenland is not that far from eastern Canada and Maine. The waters off those coasts teamed with fish, an important part of the European diet. But again, no one knows who those first settlers were.

The first English permanent settlement in North America Roanoke Island in 1587 under the auspicies of Sir Walter Raleigh. But this settlement is not continuous as it disappeared under unknown circumstances by 1590. The longest continuous settlement is St. Augustine Florida starting in 1565 when the Spanish settled there. The Spanish additionally explored the San Diego California area in 1542 but made no permanent settlements. Curiosly, the French in 1564 settled on the St. John’s River in Fort Caroline Florida. That settlement was unsuccessful after repeated battle losses to the Spanish.

English America got its start in 1607 in Virginia by the Virginia Company. During its early years the Virginia Company fought for its very existance against disease and food shortages. Unlike the New England tribes of that day, the Virginia tribes were warriors and had little interest in aiding the English settlers. In 1609, when the Native leader Powhatan realized the English were not leaving, aid was given the English. However, when it was realized the English did not intend to return aid in kind, wars broke out and again challenged the settlement’s survival. What the natives had given the English was tobacco, unknown to Europeans, which quickly turned the colony around as demand for tobacco skyrocketed. This colony has the ignomonous distinction in bringing the first slaves to America.

In 1620, as is well-known, the Pilgrims made their way to Plymouth. As with their southern neighbors, these colonists struggled to survive their first winter, losing 50% of all settlers that winter. But unlike the Virginia Colony, the Pilgrims were quick to make friends with the Wampanoag tribe and its leader, Squanto. These natives showed the Pilgrims the basics in farming the New England soil.

To the northern, on the Shamut penninsula, today known as Boston, Samuel Maverick in 1624 brought two slaves there. The Puritans did not arrive until 1630. And even though their religion banned slavery, they not only tolerated it, they bought into it. None of the New England colonies had a large number of slaves but every colony had them.

To the north of the New England colonies, the French settled Quebec and New Brunswick. With American domination in mind, the French moved southward over the Michigan penninsula down the Ohio and Mississippi River to New Orleans founding the settlement of St. Louis along the way.

The Spanish interest in North America was in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. But the early years found no conflict between the Spanish and either the English or French.

It is necessary to point out, when discussion who came here first, that African slaves existed in all 13 colonies. To be certain, the black American predates almost every European save the French and English. They must be counted as an original settler. Additionally, although the exact number is not known, between 6 and 7 million slaves were brought here.

by

A History of Immigration in the U.S.: Preface


This is the first in a series of posts to tell of the history of immigration to America starting with its earliest instances and continuing to today. I am prompted to do this because of the latest round of xenophobia stoked by the Trump presidency. But Trump is only the latest in a long history of such response.

The United States undoubtedly has citizens who trace their ancestry back to every country in the world today, and, to countries which either no longer exist or have changed their identity.

We are a nation of immigrants with only a very small portion of indigenous peoples, who, according to anthropologists are actually immigrants themselves. The difference is that those immigrants came approximately 10,000 years ago over the frozen bridge between present day Russia and Alaska. But that sort of migration was a ancient form of world population which first began in Eastern Africa a million years ago, possibly longer.

The immigration policies of today in the United States have only existed since 1924 in full force as part of a quota system established by the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. That act had its beginnings in 1917 when the United States tried to stem certain populations from entering the United States. But even 1917 is not the beginning. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, a purely racist act by the westesrn states over fear of white supremicy and racial purity. Those Chinese immigrants first started entering the U.S. in 1848.

The American idea of who was an American came out of the large emigration of people from England in the early years of our country. As other nationalities started to enter the United States, there was a push back against them over fears of these immigrant taking jobs from established residents.

But the American view of who was actually an American was narrowly defined excluding black Americans who first arrived in 1619 in the Virginia Colony but quickly spread to all 13 of the original colonies. Later, when there were threee waves of Irish immigration, more and more the actual signage on stores of “Irish Need Not Apply” were common. What brought this sort of xenophobia was the fact that almost all Irish brought with them Roman Catholocism with them, a challenge to the anti-Papal religions of Protestantism.

But anti-Irish sentiment quickly passed into the background when beginning in the 1890s a wave of southern and eastern Europeans arrived on our shores. These non-English speaking peoples who not only brought more Catholicism with them, also brought Judeism with them. Additonally the southern Europeans brought a darker skinned people who stood out. Nowhere in the United States was this assimilation shown more prominently than in the lower east side of New York City when these peoples settled. Suddenly the English speaking majority’s ears heard Italian, Polish and Yiddish languages which these immigrants clung to. But this shows the short memories of those Americans who had forgotten the German speaking immigrants of the 1880s.

In the following chapters, I will outline how and who grew our population over the decades. But also, with the great immigration of 1890 to 1920 was the beginnings of many reform movements and unionization. Each of these was an anathema to the English speaking conservative Americans. Immigants poured through the ports of New York, Boston and Baltimore unabated until 1924. American industrialists fought that immigration and were behind the 1924 act.

This is an overview of what I will present in the following chapters. American thought today has the unfortunate lack of understanding that we are still a country heavily reliant upon new immigrants, a fact that will undoubtedly continue in the coming decades. Hopefully you will gain an appreciation of “how we got here” when I finish.

by

Southern Baptists Espousing Racism?


First, I am obligated to give credit to the Sunday Boston Globe (June 13, 2021) for certain of the beginning thoughts here.

Tennessee and Oklahoma have recently passed certain laws in regard to what is taught in public schools about race and racism. At the heart of these laws is a restriction in how racism is taught. This is the result of many factors, not the least of which is the political divide of the very conservative wing of the Republican party and its evangelical proponents. This coming week there is a meeting of the white Southern Baptist ministers in Nashville. These far-right wingers claim to be strict adherants to Biblical law. The difficulty here, of course, is the very definition of Biblical law, every church having its own interpretation.

The Baptist Church of the south split from its northern bretheren in 1848 over the issue of slavery. The historical boundary was laid in place and where the northern churches have been far more inclusive, the southern churches have clung to “old south” ideas. But problematic here is the very nature of church and state. Everyone thinks of the 1st Amendment as the “freedom of speech” amendment, which it is and includes religion, however, within that amendment is a bar against making laws that support any single religious idea. And so, it would seem that the newly enacted laws in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Idaho, along with a dozen more southern states with plans to enact similar laws, fly in the face of the 1st Amendment.

What bothers me most about these very conservative churches is that while they swear they are following Biblical Law, it sounds like their tendency is more towards Mosaic Law, Old Testament, than New Testament Law. Two phrases in the Gospels of the New Testament have always been a guide to me as to how Jesus meant us to live our lives. He was asked twice about how to act and said, in so many words, do unto others as you would have others do unto you, and, whatever you do unto the least of my children, you do unto Me. As far as I can tell, conservative southerners do not follow either of these principles. They seem more comfortable with the “eye for an eye” concept, as rendered in the Old Testament. But they are unwilling to accept that highly educated theologians of all walks have long argued over the veracity of both Old and New Testament verses. The best example of this comes under the guise of Moses. The problem here is that there is no proof that a person by the name of Moses ever lived. To wit, the Egyptians of those days kept very exacting records of events and no where is the name of Moses or anyone akin to him mentioned. This in turn puts into doubt all stories about the Ten Commandments which many historical theologians have placed at more along the lines of 500 commandments.

I only bring up those Biblical references as examples of religious dogma and its affect upon modern society. In our country, Christianity makes up 67% of all beliefs in the U.S. No other religion commands more 2% to include atheists. Of the Christian religions, 25% of all are Evangelicals, 21% are mainline and black protestants, and 21% are Catholic. But, according to today’s Bostn Globe, Evangelical religions have been enduring a decreasing membership which have the southern bishops fearing they are losing out to more centrists beliefs. But, since Evangelicals hold substatial polical sway in all southern capitals, they are doubling down of their efforts to stem the tide. This, as shown above, is coming at the expense of truth in history and society. The 1925 Scopes Trials first brought into view the problems with religion dictating what is taught in our schools. It would seem that nearly 100 years has put this landmark decision into the fog of history and allowed those who have forgotten it to return to more primitive times. It would seem the time has arisen for a second Scopes trial, only this time it must be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court to stem religion’s hold on public education.

It is our responsibility to allow our children the full view of both history and society, and to allow them the purview to make up their own minds as the progress in life. It is ill-advised to allow blinders to be put on our children to hide inconvenient truths, to the stains of our past, the the need for civility and acceptance of all people regardless of their beliefs for if we do not, the ability of our democracy to survive will be put on trial.

by

U.S. History and the Tulsa Massacre


Let me first quality myself. I have a masters degree in U.S. History from Harvard and I only mention the school for the level of difficulty in getting that degree.

The Tulsa massacre is just the latest piece of history that people are saying is forgotten. But that is not the case. The incident in Tulsa deserves a place in history book but only when it is part of many more such events. What do I mean?

If I were to write a comprehensive history of America, I could easily fill ten volumes at 1000 pages per volume and minimal pictures, maps and other such things. Decades ago a sociologist suggested that the approach to history was too thin and suggested a thick interpretation. That means, when you look at an event, such as the Battle of Lexington and Concord, you cannot give it a full explanation without including everything which was involved in that event. That means you must include weather conditions, what the mission of the British military was, who their commanders were and their level of education and experience. You must talk about the size of the villiages they traveled through and of course the population of Lexington and Concord vs. the military forces which descended upon them. Having studied this event closely, I can tell you that this lone event would easily take 100 pages if were truly use a thick interpretation of the event itself and all the tangental events. That is an unreasonable amount of time and presentation for this event.

The Revolution itself had many stories of individuals and their effect on history. There is the story of Deborah Samson, a woman who join the militia saying she was a man. She successfully evaded detection for almost two years and that was only because she was wounded at a conflict which required the attention of a doctor. She had been able to handle other injuries successfully without being detected. But she represents women in history, most of whom are never mentioned in our history books. Women such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger and many others who played very important roles in our history. Why do we not include them.

The Civil War could easily take up five volumes of 1000 pages each. And that is true of every conflict our nation was ever in, each deserving mention in our history books. The incident in Tulsa, ugly as it was, is far from the only incident of that type. Many other similar events happened throughout the south.

We must include black history, Spanish history, French history, the history of suffrage, of reform movements, of strikes, of labor unions, of a segregated military, of each president, of immigration, and so on and so forth. My listing out the various events here should give anyone pause to consider how to present a full accounting of our nation’s history. But that is an impossible task. Who what do include and what do we not include? It does not matter who you leave out or what you leave out, someone is going to feel shorted in the tell of our history. But unless the public suddenly accepts telling history in 10,000 pages, a comprehensive telling of our history is impossible.

by

Where Have All the Decent Republicans Gone?


I just watched a salute to Bob Dole, former senator from Kansas, who is now 98 and dying from cancer. I never voted for Bob Dole, but I recongnized him as a very decent person, a veteran who was a hero, as a good man. In 1997, President Bill Clinton bestowed upon him the highest honor a civilian can get from the government. In those moments, there was no Republican-Democrat divide. It was the simple acknowledgement of a member of one party to another that his sevice must be recognized.

I have never voted strictly party line, Democrat, simply because I recognized the huge failings of certain Democrats and would vote for their Republican opponent. In Massachusetts, where I spent most of my life, I am now living in North Carolina, I can remember as a teenager when Ted Kennedy first won a seat in the senate, there was something about him which I did not like, even though I could not put my finger on it. The, in 1967, when he caused the death of MaryJoe Kopeckne, my mistrust of him and his ability to escape prosecution he so richly deserved, was solidified. Not once did I ever vote for him.

I spent 11 years on active duty in the Army and was stationed in states such as Louisiana, Texas and Georgia, all of which had seen the old Dixie-crats (Democrats) switch parties in 1968. And even though I do not remember who I voted for in those states, they were solidly Republican. That never bothered me. Most of the senators and representatives for both parties were largely centrists.

Then in 1996, the Senator Newt Gingrich decided it was time to become devisive with his “Contract to America.” That piece of legislation, with the Republican controlled house, was passed into law and pushed the Republican party a little further to the right. Also at the time there were people like Pat Robertson, a man from the far right, who were trying to pull the party further to the right. It was Gingrich who first introduced the “us against them” sentament. And then when they decided to get rid of the most hated Democrat, Bill Clinton, they spent millions of dollars, with Ken Starr in the lead, to convict Clinton of an abuse of power charge. It failed by a single vote, as most have, but it set into motion a move that continues to this day.

But even in those days, the majority of Republicans were decent people. In the 2000 election, which the Republican party started using dirty tricks to win, George Bush won when Republicans usurped the power of the Florida State Supreme Court, and got a decision they desired to give George Bush the win. I never voted for George Bush, but even so, I found myself defending him against Democrats who liked to call him a draft dodger and druggie. I reminded them that Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and was subject to activation to Vietnam just like so many National Guard units had been. He is a veteran and I almost always defend veterans against those who choose to demean them by spurious lies. That exact thing happened to John Kerry, a silver star awardee for his service in Vietnam, when a group called the “Swift Boaters” mounted a series of lies about Kerry to insure Bush’s win. I thing George Bush would have won anyway, but this was Karl Rover, the Republican architect of the early 2000s, working his dirt.

And now Republicans are giving homage to a man who is probably the worst president we have ever had, even worse than John Quincy Adams and Andrew Johnson, both of whom scholars show them as complete failures as president. But in the case of Adams, he returned to the U.S. House and became an extremely successful leader there. And so it is not unheard of for an former president to continue public service. William Howard Taft became a member of the U.S. Supreme Court after his defeat for re-election, and eventually became the chief justice and an admired member. I only wish the George Bush would consider doing the same in Texas.

The term “Moderate Republican” is fast becoming a name difficult to assigned to any Republican in either the house or senate. Why is that? Donald Trump managed to so polarize the American republic, they fear that to speak out against him will cause their defeat for re-election. Why are they cowtowing to the will of a single man over the greater good of their contituents? Why do they find it so difficult to speak the truth over perpetuating the great lie of 2020 that the election was somehow stolen from Trump even though Republican jurists around the nation have declared Joe Biden to be the legitamite winner?

To those few Republican who still stand for something, the truth, Liz Cheney, Chuck Grassely, Mitt Romney, Susan Collans and a few others, I truly hope they will rescue the Republican party from its death wish.

by

Time to Change Term Lengths for U.S. Representatives Plus Term Limits


Our Constitution sets out the terms for both senators and representatives. But these were laid out in an era when campaign financing was insignificant and a mistrustful nation felt representatives should run every two years. But times have changed. Campaign funding, at all levels, is big business. For those who are members of the house, they get elected and almost immediately must think of getting re-elected. That is because they have to find the funds to be able to run ads for their next term and to pay for other re-election expenses. This necessarily takes away from their ability to serve their constituency as well as they could.

The solution is to change their term from 2-year to 4-year terms. This would require an Constitutional amendment but it should not be that difficult. By increasing the term to 4 years, representatives would be able to serve their constituents better.

The change would happen as a representative came up for re-election. It would take six years to cycle through every representative but in the end, you would still have elections every two years, 1/3 of the house vying for re-election, as presently happens.

Secondly, both the house and senate should be allowed to serve a total of 18 years in either the house or senate. That means someone could serve in the house for 18 years and then continue in the senate for another 18 years, 36 years total. And by not allow any present member to be grandfathered, meaning they would immediately fall under this rule, a total of 18 senators, mostly democrats, would be required to retire when their present term ends.

by

U.S. Government and UFOs


On Sunday evening 60 Minutes had a portion of its show devoted to UFOs or as the Federal Government calls the UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). In 1969 the U.S. Government ended a project named “Blue Book” which looked into these sightings claiming there was nothing to them. But since the end of World War 2, U.S. citizens and a multitude of commercial and military pilots have reported sightings on a fairly regular basis.

On 60 Minutes, two Naval aviators told of seeing an “aerial phonomena” which defied explanation. The government now admits to one of three possibilites that such objects are extraterrestial. But from where do they come?

The physics behind interstella space travel makes an excellent case for the extreme unlikeliness of making the trip from our nearest neighboring star to Earth. That star is known as Proxima Centauri and is a mere 4.2 light years distant. But a single light year is 9.3 trillion miles making Proxima Centauri on the order of 37 trillion miles distant. The case against such travel is a simple one. The faster you want to go, the more energy you need to produce. Think of it this way; if you want to go in your automobile from zero to 60 it will take a certain amount of fuel. Now double that and you know the fuel necessary is greater. The escape velocity from Earth, that amount of energy needed to defeat gravity, requires the rocket to accelerate to 17,500 miles an hour. Simple observations of the rockets used in attaining that speed show very large rocket fuel expended.

Our galaxy has somewhere between 200 and 300 billion stars, all of which are much further distant. But as you move toward the center of our galaxy, the possibility of life existing near a star becomes more and more unlikely. This is because of the amount of radiation present.

And intergalactic travel is something close to an impossibility. Our nearest galaxy, Andromeda, is 2.5 million light years from Earth!

Our present knowledge of physics states that we can never reach the speed of light because it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so. Even half that speed requires more energy than we presently know how to produce. Then, saying that speed is attained, additional energy is needed for that interstellar travel just to keep the ship’s inhabitants alive, not to mention sufficient oxygen and water. Then there is energy needed to slow down once in close proximity to the star. And then there is the return trip.

There is one possible solution. It is not quite a worm hole style of travel but more the matter of figuring out how to navigate space-time by folding one point towards another. Think of it as a piece of paper. Now, if you fold the paper to represent space-time, you must figure out how to get your vessel to jump from your point on that continuum to the other side of the paper. We have no idea how to do such a thing but a very ancient and now extremely advanced civilization may know how to do it.

The final question/quandry, is, how do they know we are even here? We are sort of a backwater solar system on the outer portion of our galaxy.

by

Republicans Abandon Truth for the Big Lie


What has happened to the Republican party? Their focus used to be on economics, smaller government and lower taxes. Today they are entirely focused on continuing Donald Trump’s big lie that the election was somehow stolen from him. Why do they not believe the Trump federal court judges and the U.S. Supreme Court who declared that the election was entirely without any substantial issues with the vote count. Did they not see the election results where Biden beat Trump quite decisively by 7 million votes?

Trump’s appeal while in office was to the dark base feelings of white America who fear non-white immigrants and who believe that Democrats have suddenly become socialists. If you hear Republican senators and congressmen speak you will hear them refer to Democrats as being socialists and that their socialist agenda is on display now. Really? The only person do declare himself as a socialist is Bernie Sanders. And now they use him in painting the entire Democratic Party as being a bunch of socialists!

Republicans are panning Biden’s entire $2.3 trillion infrastructure request as somehow being socialist. There is a problem in doing that: the portion of the bill which might be called socialist can easily be deleted if only they brought to the table a true compromise bill, something larger the the $600 billion they proposed.

All that aside, a thinking person has to ask why Republicans are still giving fealty to Trump? Simply put, he still appeals to that base of white America who believes everything that ever came out of his mouth. The exceptions in the party who have decided the truth is more important, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney and a few others, are being criticized as being out of step with party unity! Hence, people like McCarthy, have decided to stick with the lie in the name of party unity. They believe they can take back the house this way.

If you look into their backgrounds you will find a common theme, they are all highly educated, many from institution which they describe as institutions of liberal education. That liberal education somehow did not affect their ideals as Republicans. They should all, and probably do, know that the truth must prevail. Our country depends upon that. But they are now fearful and have decided that they re-election is more important than the truth. They are highly intelligent people making horrible decisions.

I do believe that in time, hopefully long before the 2024 presidential elections, that the Republican party will return to its roots and that Trump will have faded into the background and be seen for what he is, a huckster who sold too many Americans a bill of goods that goes against all common sense.

by

Trump’s Latest Lie; Republican Sycophants Bow


Donald Trump declared that Facebook is hindering his First Amendment rights. That is an absolute lie. His right to free speech extends to what he writes, public speaking, except in fraud, libel, slander, child pornography, purgury, blackmail, incitement to lawless actions, true threats and solicitation to commit crimes. On privately owned platforms there is no First Amendment priveledge. Facebook, and other platforms, have the absolute right to control the type of speech on their platforms. One of the more infamous type of barred speech comes from insider trading on Wall Street where one party knows of something that is going to affect his company and tells outsides to buy or sell stocks based on that knowldge.

McCarthy and Cruz have blasted these platforms claiming they are part of a liberal bias against conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth, and they know it however they are cowtowing to a still popular former president who has a large and loyal base. They are far more interested in the political funding they get from siding with Trump then speaking against him.

But there are two Republican centrists who advocate the truth, have spoken out against Trump’s lies and know are pariahs in their own party rather than be touted as heros of the party. They are Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney. McCarthy is so incensed with Cheney’s sticking to the truth that he has arbitrarily decided that she must be removed from power. He decided this without conferring with other members of his party. But he is probably on safe ground as a large portion of Republicans either agree with Trump or are too fearful to speak against him.

It would seem that Republicans themselves are more against free speech than they are in protecting it. They seem cowed by the lingering presence of an out-of-office president who is probably the most devisive personality since Andrew Johnson. I do hope that in the near future cooler heads will prevail, that truth will prevail and that Republicans will get their heads out of their butts and just do the right thing!

by

Five New States? Why Not!


The United States possesses four territories plus the District of Columbia. The territories are the American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rice. The United States has held the territories for over 100 years. And in the case of Guam, this territory cannot exist on its own.

The District of Columbia is a special case since it has always existed entirely on American soil. The idea of it, as proposed by George Washington, was to provide a neutral place for our nation’s Capitol. It was established in 1790 but the Capitol Building itself was not finished until 1800, along with other supporting buildings. The city’s population in 1800 was a little over 14,000 people. Today the city’s population is about 690,000 people. Contrast that with Wyoming’s population of 578,000, Vermont with 626,000 and North Dakota with 760,000. Washington has a larger population than 2 states and is close the a third. Why are the people of Washington kept from having a voting representative and two senators?

It was not until 1971 that Congress allowed the district to have a non-voting representative to Congress. From its earliest days, Congress has been the presiding power over Washington DC. The city of Washington has an elected mayor who with her city council passes ordinances. From time-to-time, Congress acts to overturn certain of these ordinances as it sees fit and the city has no right to redress. Clearly a violation of our Constitution.

The Spanish-American war allowed the United States to gain province over the aforementioned territories. The population of American Samoa is 55,300, of Puerto Rico 3.2 million, of Guam 167,000, and of the American Virgin Islands 106,000 people. Together they represent 3.5 million people with no say in their administration. When Arizona was admitted to the union in 1912 it had about 200,000, and when Wyoming was admitted it had barely 56,000. To argue size is made irrelevent by these numbers. One of the most recently admitted states, Alaska had only about 200,000 people.

These four territories plus D.C. have a legitimate complaint about not being properly represented in Congress. Each has one non-voting member of the House of Representatives. They get to be heard but are not allowed to vote on laws which deeply affect their constituents. The present U.S. Government is doing exactly what the British Parliment did prior to the Revolution. And the colonists vocally decried that lack of representation to Partliment. In a final try to gain that representations, Benjamin Franklin eloquently laid forth his case for the representation only to be mocked and laughed at. This was one of the final acts which lead to the revolution.

The people of Washington DC and Puerto Rico have been quite vocal in the same way. But their complaints have long gallen on deaf ears. It is wrong and it must be corrected. Republicans have long voted against statehood only because they fear these two areas would only send Democrats to Congress. They have shown no concern for the people who live there. It is time for Congress to act and for Congressional Republican to stop being obstructionists.