Do you support the Minutemen? Well don't

[aspawloski4th]

I don’t think it’s just you. I’ve heard this complaint about the use of “American” by just about every foreigner I’ve disscussed it with, especially our neighbors from the south.

Even Wikipedia refers to this:

so it’s not just you!

Wikipedia also gives a bit of history about the naming:

So the name of the American continent predates the United States by close to 3 centuries!

when people know they are in the wrong they skew the issue. people of the USA have been refred to as americans for 2 centurys now. until the germans came in to switzerland and renamed thing they were called helvetians. but we still call it switzerland, big deal! as far as Im concearned we are americans. thats what I was taught in both Catholic and public school, that what I was taught by parents grand parents and greatgrandparents. that how I refer to people of the USA as for 39 years now Im not about to change. I sense guilt from some here for being american. you cant get me to feel that way myself. Im american yes Im Catholic. I dont want neither my country nor church in ruin. if that means stepping on a few toes to protect either so be it.

 

[aspawloski4th]

The problem again is that we look like we are looking at big problem introspectively (if I may say) again MY, MY, MY is coming (my ancestors, my wife). I used “our” to describe those ancestors we are clearly not family bro. You’re taking a comment that I making about our common ancestors (not necessarly blood ancestors) and making it a personal one. My ancestor did not come on the mayflower or whatever, they came in way latter. My point is that we have to put things in perspective, and not treat those new comers worst then the bottom of our shoes. We are changing the character of america. Today the legal immigrant is look upon with suspicion because he has an accent it should not be the case. The problem is there, its clear hate and emotion will not solve it (not that you hate them). First let’s pray than let’s look at thing in a comprehensive way, and again if at all possible let’s try and break them into categories; those 2 examples I have given should not happened in the name of Charity. respect, consideration, dignity and yes a great dose of charity 'all i’m saying…

In my personal life I have a track reocrd of treating new comers just fine. at a job I used to work I had welcomed a new friend from bosnia, me and my wife babysitted for a hispanic family (who came here legally), back at the end of the vietnam war my whole imadiate family welcomed a vietnamese refugee family who was statying with nun’s nearby to use our pool and patio for relaxation, and of course swimming. all people I hav mentioned have learned english and assimilated, and are productive members of society. we have an unlimited right to protect our borders which includes the right to document everyone coming into our country. so we can weed out terroists, public health risks and criminals( murderers, robbers, etc). thats constitutional and the right thing to do.

 

[jmj603]

You’ll have to consult with a Canadian for the current term most commonly used to distinguish themselves from citizens of the United States.

It was a rhetorical question. The answer is, even Canadians will use the term “American” when there is no alternative. It’s a valid term, and in any event, a point of strong preference for Americans who call their nation by its only non-technical name.

It’s also the name the Blessed Mother used to refer primarily to this country when she chose the title, Our Lady of America:

In the course of approving the writings of Sister Mary Ephrem, Monsignor Paul F. Leibold considered the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title, “Our Lady of America” (basically referring to the United States of America), as distinct from her title, “Empress of The Americas” (referring to Our Lady of Guadalupe, as declared by Pope Pius XII in 1945, as having patronage over all the American nations). Our Lady of America (in the singular) focuses primarily on the United States of America as revealed in 1956.

–Source

Now how are people going to listen to Our Lady of America if they’re criticized for calling themselves “American”?

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is such an enormously long thread, I am going to confess in advance that I haven’t read all of it. So if what I say is redundant, I ask your forgiveness.

I suspect those who say the San Diego group is a rogue group are probably right. I can’t picture Sean Hannity mixing with an anti-Catholic group and speaking approvingly of them, which is something he does with the Minutemen.

It seems to me the real problem is that the government does not do what it is supposed to do regarding the border, thus leaving the field open for organizations that try to fill in, and sometimes do it badly. If all of the cops in Chicago disappeared, militias would spring up overnight; some of which would be good and some of which would be horrible. That’s part of the reason we have governments. When the government fails the people and the people know it, all kinds of things can happen. That’s what we are experiencing. It is simply insane to say that people ought not to oppose chaos. People have a natural instinct to oppose it, particularly when that chaos is directly contrary to the laws which the peoples’ representatives, reflecting the peoples’ will, have passed. It’s also insane to say that a nation ought not to have the right to define its citizens and invitees. No nation can possibly protect its people or its economy without doing that. The real question is whether this nation does so or is likely to do so in a manner that really protects its legal residents, yet allows for it to be as generous to others as possible. For some nations, this might include excluding immigrants altogether, which Mexico pretty much does to Central Americans, perhaps to avoid simply increasing the poverty. For the U.S., clearly, there is geographical and economic room for greater numbers. As far as anyone knows, that is because U.S. institutions provide an environment in which great numbers can prosper. Yet, the government leaves immigration issues to militias. So what is the answer?

I don’t think the most recent legislative attempts were good answers, and I think most Americans (including lots of Hispanic Americans) oppose them. These represent further governmental failures, and are cynical attempts to make something bad look good. I personally favor Hispanics over virtually all other likely newcomers for a number of reasons. But there needs to be a way to do this for real; not by some bogus legislative invitation to further, and likely worse, chaos. Chaos, again, invites militia activity.

So, the question is, how can the government become the regulator of immigration that it should be, when it manifestly is willing to leave the whole thing up to the “militias”, in reality, in the future as it has in the past? This is an extremely serious failure. That question is like many faced by Americans. Legislators are corrupted, not just on the immigration issue, but on many others; abortion, healthcare, corporate welfare, by the system that allows them to sell their votes to parties in interest. Yes, Mexico is horribly corrupt; perhaps irredeemably so. But we’re following that path, and people ought to realize that it’s so. Unfortunately, Americans are not organized in the right way to fight this. I am not one who favors “third parties”, generally. But when the failures of those who govern cause people to turn to self help, it’s probably time to either truly clean up one party or reject them both and simply accept it that it might be time for a third party. Possibly voting every last legislator out of office out of principle might be a good start.

 

[sprout]

It was a rhetorical question. The answer is, even Canadians will use the term “American” when there is no alternative. It’s a valid term, and in any event, a point of strong preference for Americans who call their nation by its only non-technical name.

It’s also the name the Blessed Mother used to refer primarily to this country when she chose the title, Our Lady of America:

Now how are people going to listen to Our Lady of America if they’re criticized for calling themselves “American”?

LOL. My how this topic has gone through some twists and turns!

I don’t criticize people for calling THEMSELVES Americans! There’s nothing inherantly wrong with identifying oneself by the region where you live. EXCEPT when the use of the term is in an exclusionary manner when referring to people from south of the border who are also “Americans” since they too are inhabitants of the American continent. Many people find this tendency of some in the US to be the height of arrogance.

As I pointed out earlier, their ancestors and nations have inhabited this continent longer than the US, which was founded almost 300 years after the continent was named.

It’s when it’s used to EXCLUDE that it’s use is so arrogant and offensive.

 

[CLearthinking04]

Um, your rhetoric just gave the WASP’s the moral right to defend themselves by force of arms. And Catholics have no right to choose the unjust side in war, just because they happen to be Catholic.

I did note that their abuse of Catholics is morally wrong. Please re-read the post. I do not condone actions that are wrong.

CT04

 

[marci]

This is such an enormously long thread, I am going to confess in advance that I haven’t read all of it. So if what I say is redundant, I ask your forgiveness.

ditto

In the area where I live (border town), three days ago the morning news reported a story about how drug trafficers are now going to target American citizens, apparently because they believe what little the US has done to stop drug importation is cutting into their bottom line.

The threat of drug cartels is just one of the disasters Americans living on the border have to deal with. It’s real easy to talk about how we should just wave our hand and say “ya’ll come on in”, until it’s your back yard people (and not always nice people) are coming into.

If you really want to know what happens when you have unchecked immigration, come down to the southern border and take a look see. We are living in a third world country that just happens to be a couple of miles inland.

 

[jj2011]

Marci is a Quadragesimo Anno fan. That’s great.

Marci, if you accept that document because Christ spoke through Pius XI, you must accept Church teaching on immigration because Christ spoke through Pius XII and John XXIII and John Paul II.

These popes did not necessarily push “open borders.” They affirmed that migrants have certain rights-- not that drug dealers have the right to target Americans.

 

[Moneo]

In language, common usage eventually determines correctness. See the dictionary.

Okay, Mr. Barnhill, which dictionary would you like to check? Merriam Webster okay?

For the lazy among us, here’s the Merriam Webster entry:

Main Entry: 1 Amer·i·can
Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'me-r&-
Function: noun
1 : an American Indian of North America or South America
2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America
3 : a citizen of the United States
4 : AMERICAN ENGLISH

Ooops! We only made #3 in the Top 4 of the Hit Parade there. Better check Webster’s online dictionary.

Ahhh. That’s better! It appears, however, that proof-texting linguistic disagreements from a dictionary is as fraught with dangers as it is when proof-texting religious ones from the Bible. Which is why I have attempted to argue rationally as well.

So-o-oo …

I don’t criticize people for calling THEMSELVES Americans! There’s nothing inherantly wrong with identifying oneself by the region where you live. EXCEPT when the use of the term is in an exclusionary manner when referring to people from south of the border who are also “Americans” since they too are inhabitants of the American continent. Many people find this tendency of some in the US to be the height of arrogance.

As I pointed out earlier, their ancestors and nations have inhabited this continent longer than the US, which was founded almost 300 years after the continent was named.

It’s when it’s used to EXCLUDE that it’s use is so arrogant and offensive

.

Yes! Again, thank you! Absolutely correct!

If one simply reads without the defensive emotion, it is evident that this is what sprout and I have been saying all along vis-a-vis the use of the term America.

The people who use it as a synonym for citizens from the United States are not wrong. BUT, the ones who do so in an exclusive way, refusing to acknowledge that the other inhabitants of those land masses have any legitimate claim to this name are behaving arrogantly, perhaps out of ignorance rather than bad will, but it is still offensive to people from the other American countries.

I sense guilt from some here for being american. you cant get me to feel that way myself. Im american yes Im Catholic.

You sense guilt in others? I didn’t realize we had a Betazoid on the thread. Thank you, Counsellor Troi.

I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. No one has said anything about feeling guilty about being American, nor are they trying to make you feel guilty about anything.

as far as Im concearned we are americans. thats what I was taught in both Catholic and public school, that what I was taught by parents grand parents and greatgrandparents. that how I refer to people of the USA as for 39 years now Im not about to change.

Of course you’re Americans. Of course that’s what you were taught in school. Of course that was correct. But your understanding of what American means is incomplete. Do you find that insulting? You shouldn’t. I used to use the term in an exclusive way too, until I began to travel and until I started to live outside the U.S., and then I learned that what I was doing was inadvertently offensive, and I stopped doing it.

 

[geezerbob]

Your smart aleck answer notwithstanding, a citizen of the U. S. is one definition of American, which is all I said. Charity should not be reserved for immigrants alone. Do you think you could siphon off a little of it to tone down the condescending tone of your posts?

 

[sprout]

If one simply reads without the defensive emotion, it is evident that this is what sprout and I have been saying all along vis-a-vis the use of the term America.

The people who use it as a synonym for citizens from the United States are not perhaps out of ignorance rather than bad will, but it is still offensive to people from the other American countries.

:clapping:

You sense guilt in others? I didn’t realize we had a Betazoid on the thread. Thank you, Counsellor Troi.

I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. No one has said anything about feeling guilty about being American, nor are they trying to make you feel guilty about anything.

:clapping:

 

[aspawloski4th]

Okay, Mr. Barnhill, which dictionary would you like to check? Merriam Webster okay?

For the lazy among us, here’s the Merriam Webster entry:

Ooops! We only made #3 in the Top 4 of the Hit Parade there. Better check Webster’s online dictionary.

Ahhh. That’s better! It appears, however, that proof-texting linguistic disagreements from a dictionary is as fraught with dangers as it is when proof-texting religious ones from the Bible. Which is why I have attempted to argue rationally as well.

So-o-oo …

.

Yes! Again, thank you! Absolutely correct!

If one simply reads without the defensive emotion, it is evident that this is what sprout and I have been saying all along vis-a-vis the use of the term America.

The people who use it as a synonym for citizens from the United States are not wrong. BUT, the ones who do so in an exclusive way, refusing to acknowledge that the other inhabitants of those land masses have any legitimate claim to this name are behaving arrogantly, perhaps out of ignorance rather than bad will, but it is still offensive to people from the other American countries.

You sense guilt in others? I didn’t realize we had a Betazoid on the thread. Thank you, Counsellor Troi.

I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. No one has said anything about feeling guilty about being American, nor are they trying to make you feel guilty about anything.

Of course you’re Americans. Of course that’s what you were taught in school. Of course that was correct. But your understanding of what American means is incomplete. Do you find that insulting? You shouldn’t. I used to use the term in an exclusive way too, until I began to travel and until I started to live outside the U.S., and then I learned that what I was doing was inadvertently offensive, and I stopped doing it.

on the subject of guilt while you havent veralized it, you imply all over the place. some of us read between the lines, because usually that where the truth of what one is trying to say lies.

 

[yannick]

Sprout, Moneo::clapping:
Simply great,
right on target at every turn, you make me proud to be an American oops… a US citizen well really both
When out of argument, your tone and will be called in question
Stay strong

 

[Moneo]

Your smart aleck answer notwithstanding, a citizen of the U. S. is one definition of American, which is all I said. Charity should not be reserved for immigrants alone. Do you think you could siphon off a little of it to tone down the condescending tone of your posts?

Certainly, though I think you’re being a tad touchy given the tone of several of your posts, including …

In language, common usage eventually determines correctness. See the dictionary.

Sounded a bit snarky to me, hence the wisecracks.

And I’m sorry, but re-reading your posts it still does not seem clear that all you were saying was that “citizen of the U.S. is one definition of American”, but if that’s what you say you meant, I’ll take your word for it. I’m pleased to hear it, because I honestly don’t think that acknowledging others as Americans in the broader sense of the word in any way diminishes the identity of a U.S. citizen or the integrity of the United States.

God bless.

 

[Ender]

When the government fails the people and the people know it, all kinds of things can happen. That’s what we are experiencing.

Yes, this is clearly the problem. Politicians view illegal immigration based on how it affects their chances of getting elected; citizens see it as an issue of security and order.

Unfortunately, Americans are not organized in the right way to fight this. I am not one who favors “third parties”, generally. But when the failures of those who govern cause people to turn to self help, it’s probably time to either truly clean up one party or reject them both and simply accept it that it might be time for a third party. Possibly voting every last legislator out of office out of principle might be a good start.

Fixing our illegal immigration problems is a non-negotiable issue for me and for a lot of other Americans. I think his support for the proposed immigration bill is the reason John McCain’s presidential bid has been essentially terminated. This is a language politicians understand. The outcry against that bill was so vociferous the phone lines to the Senate crashed. Again, this kind of response will get a politician’s attention.

Republican politicians don’t want to appear to oppose Hispanic immigration and lose another constituency so they are reluctant to fix the problem; Democrat politicians see Hispanics as much more likely to vote for them so they have no incentive to fix the problem. Voters need to make it painfully clear to whoever their representatives are that unless this problem is fixed their reelection is in jeopardy.

This is another benefit from organizations like the Minutemen - they keep the issue in the news. Hopefully the rest of us will do our part and keep pressure on Washington.

Ender

 

[jmj603]

When out of argument, your tone and will be called in question

You’ve heard of “winning the argument, and losing the soul”, right?

What’s the goal here?

 

[jmj603]

I don’t criticize people for calling THEMSELVES Americans!

Really? Earlier on the thread:

It is so ethnocentric to refer to the US as America

 

[estesbob]

*Oh Beutiful; for spacious skies *
for amber waves of grain
for purple mountains majesty
across the frutied plains
*United states, united states *
God shed his grace thee

Just doesnt sound the same does it?

Perhaps we should change it to

Bigoted yankees, bigoted yankess
God shed his wrath on thee

You know as bad a people tell us this countryb is its a wonder we dont have to build a wall to keep people in

 

[sprout]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sprout
I don’t criticize people for calling THEMSELVES Americans!
Really? Earlier on the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sprout
It is so ethnocentric to refer to the US as America:

now that’s about the most dishonest case of selective out of context quoting I’ve yet to see. Here’s my original statement IN CONTEXT!

It is so ethnocentric to refer to the US as America, especially when you are discussing immigration which involves other “Americans”, our neighbors to the south.

 

[sprout]

*Oh Beutiful; for spacious skies *
for amber waves of grain
for purple mountains majesty
across the frutied plains
*United states, united states *
God shed his grace thee

Just doesnt sound the same does it?

Perhaps we should change it to

Bigoted yankees, bigoted yankess
God shed his wrath on thee

You know as bad a people tell us this countryb is its a wonder we dont have to build a wall to keep people in

I see where your confusion lies. You think people are saying you should not call the land mass, the continent, of America - America. That’s not the case at all.

What people are saying is that when you refer to being “American” you should realize that term applies to residents of the American continent and not exclusively to citizens of the United States? Does the continental land mass called “America” end at the US borders?

does that clear it up for you?

btw: how many continents are there?