Tag Archives: Jamestown

IS A MUSLIM BAN DISCRIMINATORY?

abe-lincoln-slaves

The fuss over the executive order relating to Muslims entering the US once again highlights just how ignorant most people are of history.   This is especially true of the left, who keep on repeating the mantra that discrimination is un-American.

Perhaps they have never heard of slavery, or maybe they just want to forget it as the Democrats were the party of slavery.

Anyway, discrimination has been common in American history, going right back to the first settlements in Jamestown and Massachusetts Bay.   Both colonies were founded by WASPs, for WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants).   The location of Jamestown was chosen to hide from Catholics intent on kidnapping Protestants.   At the time of independence from Great Britain, the thirteen colonies were 98% Protestant, 1% Catholic and 1% “Other,”  including Jews.

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans could not be American citizens.   Again, remember, by this time the Republicans were campaigning for the end of slavery, while the Democrats were in support; this blatantly racist decision was made by a Court that was siding with the Democrats.   Right up until the 1964 Voting Rights Act, Democratic politicians in the South deprived blacks of the vote; while the whites voted for the Democrats as the party that supported the Old (pro-slavery) South.

In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress.   The law was against ethnic Chinese, as even Chinese from British territories were not allowed.   The Act was renewed in 1892.

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has self-righteously announced that Canada will take in refugees America doesn’t want. Canada is another country going soft, also wallowing in ignorance of history.   His predecessor, Stephen Harper, apologized in 2006 for the 1923 Act of the Canadian parliament that banned Chinese immigration. Australia had a “White Australia” policy before 1972. Muslim countries routinely discriminate – it’s impossible for whites to settle in their countries and become citizens.   The same is true of most African countries.

As the first mosque was opened in the US in 1929, there were clearly few if any Muslim immigrants before that date.   Non-white immigration was strictly limited before the 1965 Immigration Act, which literally changed the face of America.

It should be remembered that in 1942, a Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, issued Proclamation No. 2537 “requiring aliens from World War II-enemy countries–Italy, Germany and Japan to register with the United States Department of Justice. Registered persons were then issued a Certificate of Identification for Aliens of Enemy Nationality.   A follow-up to the Alien Registration Act of 1940, Proclamation No. 2537 facilitated the beginning of full-scale internment of Japanese Americans the following month.”  (History magazine)

More recently, President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, banned Iranians (Muslims) from entering the US during the 1979-80 hostage crisis.

So, clearly, it is possible for the US president (and even Canadian and Australian governments) to put an end to Islamic immigration, if they want to.

And what about Europe?

A Muslim army tried to conquer Europe in the eighth century.   It was defeated in 732 at the gates of Paris, by the grandfather of the future Emperor Charlemagne.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Muslim armies tried to take Vienna, at the heart of Europe.   They were defeated by Catholic armies.

There is no record of Austrians demonstrating to let them in!   That had to wait until 21st century liberalism, where half the population is besotted with ignorance of both history and comparative religion. The Catholics of 1683 knew that Islam was a pagan religion – they were terrified the Muslims might win and take over, ending their way of life.   Not so today’s churches who are more inclined to welcome immigrants and refugees.   Even the pope took in a family or two at the Vatican and has said that the building of walls is unchristian – it was walls in the Middle Ages that kept the pagans out, enabling citizens to stay safe.   It was Roman Catholics who built those walls.

In 1095, Pope Urban II called on the nations of Western Europe to launch a “Crusade” against Muslims who were killing and harassing Christians on pilgrimages to the Holy Land.   He called for Christian forces to retake the Holy Land.   Again, there were no demonstrations in the streets in support of Muslims – everybody knew the horror stories from the Middle East.   It’s true that Christians perpetrated horrendous acts against Muslims during the two centuries of the crusades, illustrating how the two religions cannot exist peacefully side by side.   This is another lesson not taught in today’s public schools!

It’s sad that the issue of immigration from Muslim lands has become a political football.   It would be a lot better if there were bipartisan agreement on the matter, but this is not going to happen. Consequently, the invasion will continue.   The Gatestone Institute revealed this week that Muslim immigrants arriving in Italy are shouting “Allahu Akbar” when they see the coast.   Why else would they be risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean Sea when they could simply walk into a neighboring Muslim country?   They see themselves as part of the Muslim army that is going to conquer Europe and the West.

Unless the Church and a political populist come together to try and save Western civilization!

Could Donald Trump lead the charge?   Or is it more likely that a European figure like Charlemagne will emerge to unite Europe and defeat the Muslims?   The biblical Book of Revelation speaks of a final revival of the Roman Empire (Revelation 17:12-14) that will deal with the Islamic threat from the “king of the south” (Daniel 11:40-43).

Footnote:    I would like to write an eye-witness report from a couple of European countries on the Muslim invasion of the continent. If you can donate frequent flyer miles (60,000) or money to cover expenses, please contact me at rhodesmf@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

THE WORLD’S OLDEST DEMOCRACY

Indian artist Harwinder Singh Gill shows off his creation, an image of US president Barack Obama carved on a duck's egg shell with the national flags of India and the United States, on January 24, 2015. Mr Obama is due to arrive in India on January 25, 2015.  Munish Sharma/Reuters
Indian artist Harwinder Singh Gill shows off his creation, an image of US president Barack Obama carved on a duck’s egg shell with the national flags of India and the United States, on January 24, 2015. Mr Obama is due to arrive in India on January 25, 2015.
Munish Sharma/Reuters

All nations have an inflated view of themselves and their place in the world.

The Times of London famously carried a front-page headline over a century ago that read:   “Fog in Channel.   Europe cut off.”   The reality, of course, was that Britain itself was cut off from the much bigger continent of Europe.

This morning (Monday) I heard something similar on CBS.   It was a news item on President Obama’s visit to India.   It went something like this:   “The leader of the world’s oldest democracy is meeting the leader of the world’s largest.”

Now, I’ve heard this before . . . but this time I want to comment.

How can the United States, barely 200 years old, possibly be the world’s oldest anything?

It certainly isn’t the world’s oldest democracy.

I googled this, asking where the idea comes from.   The answer, it seems, is the politicians.   In recent years, they have been claiming this is the case, when it isn’t.   Ignorance of history never stopped anybody from attaining office.

For the record, one of the first things the original colonists did when they landed in Jamestown, was hold an election.   Elections were regularly held in the colonial period.   The turnout averaged 90%.   On this basis alone, you could say that colonial America was more democratic than what we have now, when participation is usually less than 50%.

When the colonists held that first election, they were not inventing democracy.   Their country of origin, Great Britain, already had a democratic system in place.   Not since 1215 had English kings held absolute power.   For centuries after that date, parliament was gradually becoming more powerful at the expense of the crown.

The first parliament was summoned in 1264.

Part of the problem is that “democracy” can mean different things in different countries.

The North Koreans call themselves “The Democratic Peoples Republic” of Korea but they are neither democratic nor a republic.

When I googled the word “democracy,” this is the definition it came up with.   Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”   “All the eligible members of a state” does not necessarily mean that every person has the vote.

Today, in the year 2015, we in the West think of a democracy as a country where every adult has the vote.   But this has not always been the case.   It wasn’t in ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy, where women and slaves were not allowed to vote.   A universal franchise, where everyone has the vote, is a fairly recent thing.   It did not exist in the United States until at least 1964 when the Voting Rights Act guaranteed the right of all adults to vote.   Even then, there were some who missed out until more recently.   In England, women got the vote in 1918, but they had to be 30, whereas men could vote at 21.   Ten years later, the law was changed to make women fully equal with men.

Forty years ago, we lived in Rhodesia, which had a qualified franchise, similar to what the United States had in its infancy.   Actually, Rhodesia was more generous as women had the vote equally with men, something America didn’t have until 1920.   Rhodesia had five qualifications for voting.   Diane and I did not meet all five, whereas many Africans we knew did.   Once everybody got the vote, a dictatorship came to power and has remained there for 35 years.   Rhodesia was far more democratic than its successor state.

Anyway, forget England and America.   Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and the Isle of Man all have a parliamentary system that goes back to the ninth or tenth centuries.

There is no basis for claiming the US is the world’s oldest democracy. But what would you expect from a bunch of lawyers in Congress? After all, they are wrong on most things!

 

FERGUSON AND THE GREAT AMERICAN DIVIDE

Ferguson MO

Race is America’s Achilles heel.  It’s also the country’s biggest blind spot.

Both have been evident in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death of an 18-year-old African-American male by a white policeman, in August. The decision by a Grand Jury not to send the policeman to trial led to serious rioting last night, which has continued into a second night.

Racial tension goes back to the very beginning of the nation’s modern history and not just between black and white.

The first British settlement on the shores of North America was at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607.   Twelve years later, the first African slaves arrived and continued arriving for almost two centuries.

Later in the century, the first major conflict in American history took place. King Philip’s War lasted three years (1675-78) and was, proportionately, the worst conflict the country has ever experienced, surpassing the Revolutionary War of 1775-81 (the second worst) and the North-South conflict (1861-65). All three were civil wars.   The first war resulted in the deaths of 10% of the population of the fledgling colonies. It was a war between the white settlers and Native Americans. Over the next two centuries there would be a great deal of further conflict between whites and Native Americans.

The country would also see more conflict between African-Americans and whites.

Discrimination against non-whites was a root cause of the violence.

In the 1960’s a new approach was favored. The Civil Rights movement addressed discrimination and efforts were put in place to make some fundamental changes. The 1964 Civil Rights Act banned all forms of discrimination. One year later, the Voting Rights Act made it much easier for southern blacks to vote, ending decades of discrimination.   Ironically, race riots erupted in the Watts area of Los Angeles the following day.   One month later, President Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that required government contractors to take Affirmative Action, granting favor to minorities in employment.

Riots were to continue throughout the decade, emphasizing the bad state of race relations.   Change was clearly necessary.

In 1971, a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism made some recommendations on assimilation in neighboring Canada. This is considered the origin of multiculturalism, the idea that all races, colors, religions and nationalities can live peacefully and successfully together.   The US picked up the ball and ran with it. Australia, New Zealand and the EU followed. Multiculturalism, sometimes called “diversity,” has been the guiding philosophy of western nations for the last four decades.   Perhaps its greatest achievement in the United States was the election of an African-American to the White House

However, what’s happened in Ferguson shows that diversity is not working as promised.

Not just Ferguson, of course.   America’s inner cities have experienced ethnic conflict for decades. New immigrant groups have battled African-Americans and other new immigrant groups in never-ending gang warfare.

This is where the “blind spot” comes in.

Americans like to think of themselves as a “melting pot,” a term that has been in common usage since 1908.   It’s a reference to how different ethnic groups have been assimilated and become one. However, the term was used to describe the various European ethnic groups that migrated to the country prior to the twentieth century. It is questionable that the melting pot concept is still working.   Some would say it never included African-Americans.

America is such a vast country that it’s easy for whites to escape big cities and move to isolated dormitory towns and suburbs, where they will rarely come into contact with other ethnic groups. So it is possible for people to believe that race relations are harmonious when others feel very differently. Ferguson is a classic example of this.

It’s not just white policemen shooting young black males. There are also frequent incidents of black males randomly killing whites. These are given far less attention by the liberal media. But both show continuing racial tension and conflict.

Trust is seriously lacking.

The United States is not the only country with racial problems.   Ethnic conflict between tribes is a daily occurrence across the continent of Africa; historic conflict between ethnic groups has been a primary cause of wars in Europe; and ancient animosities flare up regularly in Asia.   Is America worse?

Over twenty years ago, the Detroit Free Press sent one of its African-American reporters to South Africa to cover news there in the year leading up to the end of apartheid.   In his dispatches, he observed that race relations were better in apartheid South Africa than in the US, where he lived.   More recently, I viewed a discussion on British television on which a number of people of African descent who had lived in both the US and the UK were asked about their experiences. All agreed they felt race relations were better in Britain.   (It should be noted that Britain has had its share of race riots.)

Jesus Christ predicted rising ethnic tensions at the time of the end of the age. In Matthew 24:7, He said: “nation will rise against nation.” The Greek word used for nation is ethnos, a reference to ethnic groups.   Until a few decades ago, the lid was kept on much ethnic conflict by great powers that ruled over many ethnic groups.   Increasingly, those groups have splintered and now are turning on each other.

Perhaps we are about to find that diversity doesn’t work, that mistrust between the races is still very much a part of our culture and heritage, not just in the United States but elsewhere.   A serious rethink is needed on multiculturalism, as racial harmony cannot be achieved by legislation or coercion. There is a definite possibility that, as a consequence of Ferguson, more laws will be passed to force further integration, which could backfire.

Social programs should also be re-evaluated. LBJ’s War on Poverty, proclaimed fifty years ago this year, offered hope to all poor families, including African-American ones, by setting up a welfare system. However, it is now possible to look back and see that welfare has contributed to the breakdown of the family, a social trend that has been particularly devastating for black families. Nine out of ten African-American boys do not live with their father to the age of 16.   The lack of a significant male presence in their lives encourages criminal activity and is a reason why there is a disproportionate number of African-American males in the US prison system.

There will be more Fergusons. Sadly, more parents of young men, both black and white, will lose their loved ones in violent acts between the races.   More riots will result in more lives lost and more property damage, though there is no sense in driving businesses away.

Race remains America’s Achilles heel – ethnic conflict could bring the country down.   But there are also many examples of whites and blacks working well together. Clearly, more work is needed to improve race relations. The alternative is growing conflict in the years to come.