Torn on This Issue

[Fremont]

They’ll do that when the US gives back the land they stole from the Cherokees, Iroquois, Mohawks, Sioux, etc.

Right. Just like when the English will give the British Isles back to the Druids, the Turks will give Constantinople (Istanbul) back to the Church, Spain will give their southern half back to the Moors and the northern part back to the Basques, Italy will cede the Papal States back to the Vatican, etc.

I wonder who decides when the clock stops ticking on various lands of the world and rules that all changes after that time are illegal whether by conquest, revolution, civil war, purchase, or any other reason?

 

[Fremont]

1. You can’t turn back the hands of time, and any talk of giving America back to the Indians, Texas back to Mexico, or Northern Ireland back to the Irish, etc. is just foolish and leads to needless and pointless conflict so let’s not go THERE.
2. If you must return Texas, California, etc., whence they came, I suggest you give them to Spain, which had them much longer than the piddly 10 years or so Mexico claimed them.
3. Christianity bids us be kind and to welcome our less fortunate brothers, but it does not bid us welcome them all at the same time.
4. Guests you welcome into your house deserve hospitality, but those who climb in the bathroom window or tunnel into the hallway when you are not looking only deserve arrest and eviction.

Right on. I fully agree.

You are very right too when you point out that the weakest claim to lands in the southwest US is that by Mexico. Spain, France and other entities controlled the area longer than the “piddly 10 years or so Mexico claimed them”

 

[Fremont]

Simply put, this is not our original homeland. That distinction goes to those who originally settled this land. And, those are the people, by and large, who are currently crossing our southern border. The borders are Western imposed ideas including Mexico. That we consider them “foreigners” in their own homeland is contrary to common sense.

Pure baloney.

There never has been any political relationship between the natives of the lands now called Mexico and the lands now called California, Arizona, Texas, etc.

People now living in Mexico have no claim on US lands. You might make a claim for the Navajos but certainly not for the natives of Mexico. The Aztecs never heard of California.

 

[Writer]

For years I’ve been vehemently against illegal immigration. I guess you could say I’m a traditional trade unionist who opposes illegal immigration because it undermines the wages of working class Americans. However I was so enraged by right-wing radio talk show host Michael Savage and his rant against the Roman Catholic Church because of the stance of some bishops on this issue that I’ve almost completely wound up in the other camp. My mother is Mexican-American and our family immigrated here legally in 1914. My grandfather fought in WWII when he was a teenager not even old enough to vote or drink. Many of my uncles did the same. Our family is very loyal to the United States. That’s why I can’t believe what I’m hearing from some people here in the states. I heard from one saying, “they should detain every brown skinned person to determine if they’re a citizen or not”. I feel that amongst some in this country there is a factor of bigotry against Mexicans whether they be American citizens or not. I’m still struggling with the issue I just wanted to put in my two cents.

My views moderated on this also in my college years. If helpful, here is an article I recently posted on my website on this issue.

home.earthlink.net/~karlerickson/id35.html

 

[Ituyu]

I’m sorry but Mexico is no different than any other country who imposed its will on the indigenous. What other “homeland” do our indigenous people have? None. This is it! They settled it originally. There is now question about it.

 

[Fremont]

I’m sorry but Mexico is no different than any other country who imposed its will on the indigenous. What other “homeland” do our indigenous people have? None. This is it! They settled it originally. There is now question about it.

This seems to be an example of “Fuzzy Math”.

We are all decedents of indigenous people somewhere in our history and thus do we all have equal claim to all lands of the world as our “homeland”?

Does everyone in the world have equal claim to everywhere in the world so the whole world is “homeland” to everyone?

And are we all just as free as the illegal immigrants to move from one location to any other location to exercise of that claim?

Is the Church in error to recognize the sovereignty of nations?

If everyone has equal claim to all lands in the world as their “homeland” it would seem that nations, borders and national sovereignty are inherently unjust.

Property ownership is a myth because everyone else has an equal claim to the property you think you own. That would seem to mean that churches couldn’t own land either, or the Vatican or anyone or any government at all.

It would thus seem the only just government would be a World Government with a purely communistic basis where everyone has equal rights to everything.

I do not buy it.

 

[geezerbob]

I’m sorry but Mexico is no different than any other country who imposed its will on the indigenous. What other “homeland” do our indigenous people have? None. This is it! They settled it originally. There is now question about it.

Our indigenous people live here. The people coming across the border are indigenous to Mexico or lands further south. I fail to see your point.

 

[Ituyu]

This seems to be an example of “Fuzzy Math”.

We are all decedents of indigenous people somewhere in our history and thus do we all have equal claim to all lands of the world as our “homeland”?

Does everyone in the world have equal claim to everywhere in the world so the whole world is “homeland” to everyone?

And are we all just as free as the illegal immigrants to move from one location to any other location to exercise of that claim?

Is the Church in error to recognize the sovereignty of nations?

If everyone has equal claim to all lands in the world as their “homeland” it would seem that nations, borders and national sovereignty are inherently unjust.

Property ownership is a myth because everyone else has an equal claim to the property you think you own. That would seem to mean that churches couldn’t own land either, or the Vatican or anyone or any government at all.

It would thus seem the only just government would be a World Government with a purely communistic basis where everyone has equal rights to everything.

I do not buy it.

I was quite clear. Our indigenous were the first to occupy the Americas and made this their homeland. They are still here and it is still there homeland. They may not have control over it but it is none-the-less their homeland. Nothing you’ve said changes that.

I won’t play you semantics game that make false premises out of something I did not say and do not follow from my statements. Yes, we are all descendants of indigenous peoples and our descendants all made there home in previously unpopulated lands. They settled and created their societies. For Europeans, the Americas were not that land and our indigenous did not invade Europe. What’s so hard to understand? They’re merely occupying the land that has always been their homeland. It’s definitely not their country. But, it is undeniably their homeland. Do you see them living somewhere else?

Sovereignty? Our sovereignty can only be violated by another country not by private citizens. Working for a living does not violate our sovereignty nor does crossing the border without permission.

Communist? Oh please! You’re way too transparent. These indigenous are not taking our land. They have to buy it or rent it like everybody else.

 

[Fremont]

I was quite clear. Our indigenous were the first to occupy the Americas and made this their homeland. They are still here and it is still there homeland. They may not have control over it but it is none-the-less their homeland. Nothing you’ve said changes that.

I won’t play you semantics game that make false premises out of something I did not say and do not follow from my statements. Yes, we are all descendants of indigenous peoples and our descendants all made there home in previously unpopulated lands. They settled and created their societies. For Europeans, the Americas were not that land and our indigenous did not invade Europe. What’s so hard to understand? They’re merely occupying the land that has always been their homeland. It’s definitely not their country. But, it is undeniably their homeland. Do you see them living somewhere else?

Sovereignty? Our sovereignty can only be violated by another country not by private citizens. Working for a living does not violate our sovereignty nor does crossing the border without permission.

Communist? Oh please! You’re way too transparent. These indigenous are not taking our land. They have to buy it or rent it like everybody else.

To set one minor point straight, I said communistic (with a little “c”) with the meaning of commune-istic or commune, not Communistic in the sense of Josef Stalin.

I believe it is not correct to group all decedents of indigenous people in the Americas as a single ethnic group with a universal claim to all areas of the Western Hemisphere as their “homeland”.

Many different peoples came to the Americas over the millennia by various means and settled in various areas. Many were nomadic and occupied a variety of areas at different times and had no “homeland”. Many battled at various times and control of lands (and thus “homelands”) changed hands over and over.

Thus there is no valid intrinsic claim that all of the Americas are the “homeland” by all peoples whose ancestors occupied even small portions of the Western Hemisphere prior to the 16th century. There were no political or social relationships between peoples like the Incas, the Aztecs and the Sioux Nation and the Iroquois and thus no basis for such a universal claim.

Further, indigenous peoples occupied only a relatively small portion of the Americas in the 16th century. Certainly much of the area in North America was wilderness with no residence or utilization by humans at all. At least a few to many Europeans moved to the Americas and settled in those vacant lands. They thus became the indigenous peoples for those areas.

Definitely there is no legitimate claim by some current resident of Central or South America whose ethnic background may be some heritage mixture of Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Polynesian, various indigenous tribes, etc. that present day Chicago is their “homeland”.

Therefore I reject your statement that anywhere in the present USA is “homeland” to anyone who is not a legitimate resident of one of the states or the District of Columbia – or, of course, US citizens currently residing in other countries that choose to call the USA their “homeland”.

 

[Ituyu]

Therefore I reject your statement that anywhere in the present USA is “homeland” to anyone who is not a legitimate resident of one of the states or the District of Columbia – or, of course, US citizens currently residing in other countries that choose to call the USA their “homeland”.

Whi8le there is a continuing controversy about who were the first Americans, experts, archaelogists and anthropologists agree in general that most of the people who made this their homeland were descendents from Siberian hunters. They first entered an originally unpopulated Americas from the north and later populated Central and South Americqa. They had made this their homeland at least 10 thousand years prior to the European congquest. DNA surveys indicate clear “affinities” between present day indigenous populations of the Americas and peoples of Siberia. Your dialogue is an attempt to rewrite the know historical facrts. The fact is that our indigenous peoples were the first to populate the Western Hemisphere. They lived here and continue to live here on their homeland. The fact that Europeans mixed with tehm does not change their homeland. Europeans unleashed a brutal murderous conquest that resulted in the most devastating genocide known to mankind. Our attack on these people continues to this very day as there is no denying that we consider theses peoples “foreigners”, “immigrants” and “illegal” on what has been and continues to be thier HOMELAND.

 

[Fremont]

Whi8le there is a continuing controversy about who were the first Americans, experts, archaelogists and anthropologists agree in general that most of the people who made this their homeland were descendents from Siberian hunters. They first entered an originally unpopulated Americas from the north and later populated Central and South Americqa. They had made this their homeland at least 10 thousand years prior to the European congquest. DNA surveys indicate clear “affinities” between present day indigenous populations of the Americas and peoples of Siberia. Your dialogue is an attempt to rewrite the know historical facrts. The fact is that our indigenous peoples were the first to populate the Western Hemisphere. They lived here and continue to live here on their homeland. The fact that Europeans mixed with tehm does not change their homeland. Europeans unleashed a brutal murderous conquest that resulted in the most devastating genocide known to mankind. Our attack on these people continues to this very day as there is no denying that we consider theses peoples “foreigners”, “immigrants” and “illegal” on what has been and continues to be thier HOMELAND.

Yes I too believe that most original western hemisphere peoples came from Siberia, but also others came by sea from places such as Polynesia.

Over the millennia they evolved into separate ethnic groups with different languages, different beliefs and became different cultures – and, most importantly established different “homelands”.

It is ridiculous to say every person alive today with even a trace of western hemisphere indigenous blood in his or her heritage can claim any and all parts of the Americas as their homeland. Certainly not if they, or anyone else, believe that such a claim infers or bestows any sort of rights or status or privileges not otherwise due under modern laws of the applicable country.

I reject the concept that any Mexican with at least some indigenous bloodline can legitimately claim any and all parts of the current USA as their homeland. Also I think it is equally ridiculous for someone of Inuit Eskimo heritage to claim modern Peru as their homeland.

Europe evolved in a similar manner and I think it is as well ridiculous for a native citizen of Italy to claim modern Norway as their homeland.

I also agree that starting in the 16th century Europeans caused much devastation to the people in the Americas. Some was intentional but most deaths were not intentional – such as via the diseases they brought with them. The Europeans did not purposely infect those they visited but it never the less happened and millions died. The sailors in medieval times did not intend to infect Europe with the Plague but it happened and much of the continent was devastated. The western hemisphere cultures of that time evolved through that just as the Europeans evolved through diseases generations earlier.

“Brutal murderous conquest”? I think that is a bit strong but some might see it that way.

However the practices of many indigenous cultures were not very different with their brutal murders of captives from those they made wars of conquest upon. The cultures battled and killed others for racial or cultural or other vile reasons and then viciously murdered the survivors by ripping their hearts out while they were still alive.

If we choose to judge the Europeans by modern day standards then we must also judge the indigenous cultures by the same standards. Both cultures did horrid things in my view but it difficult for me to say which one was worse – that becomes just a matter of personal opinion, not fact.

 

[Ituyu]

Fremont,
Like I said there is still some controversy as to who all the indigenous were. However, the presense of Polynesians matters not. Being here and settling here prior to the European conquest is important because that too would make them part of the indigenous of the Western Hemisphere. None-the-less the indigenous on American, Canadian and Mexican soil are all clearly related to those who made this their homeland prior to the European conquest. Whoever was here prior to that time had made this their homeland ten thousand and more years prior to the European conquest. Not of what you say makes this not their HOMELAND. They have no place to call home but here! Yes they made different tribes but so what? I live in Califonia and this nation is divided among a multitude of political , cultural and ethnic entities but all of the US is my country, is it not? But that is truly a different tangent. There is no doubt that the entire world had religious and other practices in their histories that we do not approve of today. The difference is that the destruction of these peoples’ lives and cultures persists to this very day. We simply refuse them the same opportunities that we afforded all European peoples who came here. The indigenous have always been among us. Yet, we have the audacity to call them “foreigners”, “immigrants” and “illegal” when they have no other homeland. The political entities and borders you would refer to in order to make your argument were all imposed upon the indigenous. We have no idea what direction these people would have taken had we not embarked upon their extinction.

 

[Jeffrey]

But we’re the indigenous ones now. Its the USA.

Fremont,
Like I said there is still some controversy as to who all the indigenous were. However, the presense of Polynesians matters not. Being here and settling here prior to the European conquest is important because that too would make them part of the indigenous of the Western Hemisphere. None-the-less the indigenous on American, Canadian and Mexican soil are all clearly related to those who made this their homeland prior to the European conquest. Whoever was here prior to that time had made this their homeland ten thousand and more years prior to the European conquest. Not of what you say makes this not their HOMELAND. They have no place to call home but here! Yes they made different tribes but so what? I live in Califonia and this nation is divided among a multitude of political , cultural and ethnic entities but all of the US is my country, is it not? But that is truly a different tangent. There is no doubt that the entire world had religious and other practices in their histories that we do not approve of today. The difference is that the destruction of these peoples’ lives and cultures persists to this very day. We simply refuse them the same opportunities that we afforded all European peoples who came here. The indigenous have always been among us. Yet, we have the audacity to call them “foreigners”, “immigrants” and “illegal” when they have no other homeland. The political entities and borders you would refer to in order to make your argument were all imposed upon the indigenous. We have no idea what direction these people would have taken had we not embarked upon their extinction.

 

[Hastrman]

The political entities and borders you would refer to in order to make your argument were all imposed upon the indigenous. We have no idea what direction these people would have taken had we not embarked upon their extinction.

I assume by “indigenous” you mean Indians? Well, I hate to tell you this, but you’ll get beat up in Mexico if you call Mestizo people Indians.

Anyway, the immigrants are from Mexico, where “we”, or rather the Spanish, did not embark upon anything resembling extinction. That was the monastery-looting dogs…um, the English, I mean, over in the East. Hereabouts, the Spanish simply established their modified form of the Roman Empire; within a few generations, there were landed peasants (what we would call ‘gentleman farmers’) throughout Mexico, many of them purely native.

There was a certain prejudice against people of Indian blood in Spanish Mexico, but a big part of it was actually a class thing, and also a ‘ties-to-the-homeland’ thing: a white person born in Spain had higher status than a white person born in Mexico.

A person of Indian blood in Spanish Mexico would be looked down on, mostly because they were probably a tenant farmer or a peasant, not a soldier, an artisan, or a noble. However, a person of Indian blood in the States, in, say, the 19th century, was basically considered half-human–treated the way people in ancient Ireland or Japan would treat someone they regarded as being a changeling, with elvish blood.

And finally, I do believe Mexico understood the Western concept of “borders” at the time of the Gadsden purchase.

 

[Ituyu]

But we’re the indigenous ones now. Its the USA.

This is our homeland too but we will never be THE indigenous.

 

[Ituyu]

I assume by “indigenous” you mean Indians? Well, I hate to tell you this, but you’ll get beat up in Mexico if you call Mestizo people Indians.

I’m concerned principally with what happens here. But, yes the Spanish plan was to have them identify with being Spanish and not “Indigenous”.

Anyway, the immigrants are from Mexico, where “we”, or rather the Spanish, did not embark upon anything resembling extinction. That was the monastery-looting dogs…um, the English, I mean, over in the East. Hereabouts, the Spanish simply established their modified form of the Roman Empire; within a few generations, there were landed peasants (what we would call ‘gentleman farmers’) throughout Mexico, many of them purely native.

Yes, of course the authority in “Mexico” understood the Western concept of borders but “Mexico” did not represent the Indigenous. The indigenous did not create borders or see the money from the sale of “their” land. Mexican authority represented their own self interests and outside interests much as they do today. But yes, they are more integrated today eventhough their “election” process appears to be as “traditional” as ever. But, we’re off topic.

 

[Fremont]

Fremont,
Like I said there is still some controversy as to who all the indigenous were. However, the presense of Polynesians matters not. Being here and settling here prior to the European conquest is important because that too would make them part of the indigenous of the Western Hemisphere. None-the-less the indigenous on American, Canadian and Mexican soil are all clearly related to those who made this their homeland prior to the European conquest. Whoever was here prior to that time had made this their homeland ten thousand and more years prior to the European conquest. Not of what you say makes this not their HOMELAND. They have no place to call home but here! Yes they made different tribes but so what? I live in Califonia and this nation is divided among a multitude of political , cultural and ethnic entities but all of the US is my country, is it not? But that is truly a different tangent. There is no doubt that the entire world had religious and other practices in their histories that we do not approve of today. The difference is that the destruction of these peoples’ lives and cultures persists to this very day. We simply refuse them the same opportunities that we afforded all European peoples who came here. The indigenous have always been among us. Yet, we have the audacity to call them “foreigners”, “immigrants” and “illegal” when they have no other homeland. The political entities and borders you would refer to in order to make your argument were all imposed upon the indigenous. We have no idea what direction these people would have taken had we not embarked upon their extinction.

It seems you may have a strange definition of the term “homeland”. It certainly is quite different than mine. But that is OK.

“They have no place to call home but here!” Balderdash. In my view, the indigenous peoples residing in Mexico do have a “homeland”, it is called Mexico.

It is unfortunate if some do not like their government but Mexico has been in place for almost 190 years. That does not give them, and they certainly do not have, any right to call the US their homeland.

Claims that people with any indigenous heritage at all are free to ignore international borders and move around as they please disregards the political realities of our modern world. In my opinion such ideas come dangerously close to equating such people with wild animals who indeed ignore political borders. I object to that.

If they ignore our borders and enter this country illegally they are subject to the penalties for such behavior.

“…we have the audacity to call them “foreigners” What? Jesus called non-Judeans foreigners. Maybe it would have been good if you had been there to point out how inappropriate and wrong it is to use such a designation about your neighbor.

Yes there is wide diversity in the US but the vast majority has common values, common language and common base culture. A huge majority of legal immigrants come to the US with the goal and intent to become part of our culture and society. This is quite different than, and in stark contrast to, any relationship some person of some indigenous background currently residing in Mexico has with the US.

…”had we not embarked upon their extinction.” Various peoples have been absorbed into new cultures for millennia. This is not “extinction”, it is just reality.

Besides what is so wonderful about indigenous people? Are they to be nurtured and coddled and preserved forever? Should we put the purest of them in some sort of sheltered environment so we can assure the genetic and cultural lines will endure perpetually?

Most people are very hardy and adaptable. Those who refuse to move along with social evolution and political reality may well be left behind.

 

[Hastrman]

The Spanish destroyed the Aztec civilization and they “unintentionally” introduced various plagues which were quite effective in reducing the “Indigenous” population.

First off, yes, it was unintentional. The Spanish wanted the Aztecs to be their subjects, which meant they couldn’t very well kill them off. It was the English who commited intentional genocide by plague; the Spanish would have viewed it as counterproductive. Don’t you know that “conquest” is different from “annihilation”? The English, whose nobles were already dispossessing their own people of land, wanted to repeat the process here; the Spanish simply wanted more territory, including the people already living there, who could pay tribute.

And second, the Aztec civilization deserved what happened to it–the Fifth Sun had gone on too long already, and had been maintained by every sin imaginable. Cortes arrived in the year Ce Acatl, the year the god-emperor Quetzalcoatl had vowed to return and take his revenge on those who had violated chastity to dethrone him (they got him drunk and had his sister seduce him, during a time when, as a priest, he had to remain pure).

Quetzalcoa-tzin’s prophesies of his vengeance were fulfilled at every turn by Cortes. Cortes arrived on a boat that, if you’ve ever seen the dinghy from a galleon, looked a lot like an overturned turtle-shell. Moctezuma’s attempt to poison the General were foiled by Cortes’ horse. The priests of Huitzilopochtli and Tezcatlipoca suddenly became unable to perform divinations properly, despite Tezcatlipoca-tzin being the god of divination (also murder by darkness). Every one of the Aztec’s subjects turned on them, including many who were also of the Nahua race, like the descendants of the Toltecs–waiting hundreds of years to throw off the oppression of Chichimec barbarians. Even with their superior technology and disease, which they wouldn’t have spread willingly even if they’d known how (it was contrary to chivalry, mostly), the Spaniards could never have defeated the army of Tenochtitlan without help from the Indians.

I don’t know where you’re from, Ituyu, but you have a simplistic, modernist understanding of history, and seem soaked in the Anglo blood-libel called La Leyenda Negra. You’re reading modern racial ideas, which didn’t exist, back into the 16th century, and failing to understand even the most basic of cultural facts. The Spanish could not conceive of any reason why they shouldn’t conquer Mexico, but not entirely for themselves–they sincerely believed they were doing the natives good by bringing them the Catholic faith (definitely yes) the Roman law (a step up, probably, from the laws of Tenochtitlan). Yes, they thought there was nothing wrong in profiting by this conquest, but they were going off the basis of all western civilization: Rome. It was, if you’ve read the Aeneid, the sacred mission of all descended from that City to “Spare the conquered people, and make war until the proud are brought low.”

And finally, the wound inflicted on the Nahua peoples by later Spanish misrule was healed by the guardian of both peoples, the Virgin of Guadalupe, Ciuapiltzin Coatlaxopeuh. She did not speak to Juan Diego by his Aztec name, but by his Spanish, baptismal name: she said, "Juan-tzin, Juan Diego-tzin! maxicmatti ma huel yuh ye in moyollo, moxocoyouh: ca nehuatl in nicenquizcacemicac ixpochtli Santa Maria, in inantzin in huel nelli teotl Dios, in ipalnemohuani, in teyocoyani, in tloque nahuaque, in ilhuicahua, in tlalticpaque.

Which means, “Honored Juan, Honored Juan Diego! Know for certain, my littlest son, that I am the perfect and pertually-virgin Santa Maria, Mother of the True God through Whom all lives, Lord of the Near and Far, Master of Heaven and Earth.” Note the Aztec dualities she used in her rhetoric.

She then goes on to promise her love and protection to “all of you who live united in this land”. She didn’t set Spaniard against Indian, or Aztec against Toltec. Lest we forget, the Spanish were the first to enact legislation to protect Indians, at Valladolid in the late 16th century. The French were next, then, I believe, the Dutch. The English and Portuguese…never bothered.

Anyway, the whole issue of Indians is tangential to the modern immigration issue; we’re getting off-topic because some insist on invoking prehistory they don’t understand to justify their racial ideas. Like some Germans I could name.

 

[Hastrman]

So, rather than just complaining about getting off topic, I shall return, like MacArthur, to the topic.

There should be more security on the border, I think–illegal immigration is illegal. That said, they need to figure out a way to make it cheaper to get processed and enter legally; I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of gov’t corruption was involved on both sides of the border. Especially in Mexico. The only country I can think of with a more corrupt government is Brazil.

The issue of security, of ensuring that al-Qaida members who can pass for Mexican (or who are Mexican converts) don’t come over, may be a problem, though. Of course, dozens of terrorists have been caught coming from Canada, but Canadians (including both their black people) are white, so of course that doesn’t matter

My gut reaction is to make everyone crossing the border take a shot of tequila to prove they’re not Muslim, but that could involve a driving hazard, discriminates against the tiny handful of Mexican Muslims, and might not prove anything. The only other thing I can think of is to institute a “stepping plate” procedure, like they did in Japan when they were persecuting the Church: you make all border crossers stand on a Quran. That, however, would involve all kinds of religious-liberty problems.

Jeepers, this issue’s complicated!

 

[Ituyu]

Anyway, the whole issue of Indians is tangential to the modern immigration issue; we’re getting off-topic because some insist on invoking prehistory they don’t understand to justify their racial ideas. Like some Germans I could name

.

Don Hastrman, call off the dogs. Yes, I give a rather simplistic view because I am looking at current day immigration issues from the viw of current day historians who say that the “Conquest” ulitmately led the to the “genocide” by Europeans though not the Spanish. New Spain had undeniable positive attributes including wealth and responsiveness to a vast array of cultures as well as the indigenous. However, Spain had at least something to do with the demise of New Spain. And, it is from the context of Spain of which I speak which was different from the realities of New Spain. Spain had the benefit of the Church to help in guiding it. It was through a Papal Bull that it was determined that the indigenous were indeed “people”. Spain also had a preoccupation with color which later reared it’s ugly head after the demise of New Spain. One Juan Lopez de Velasco, consistent with the claim of Limpieza de Sangre, noted in his Geograficas y Descripcion universal de las Indias that Spanish Americans were darker in color than Europeans and warned that they would be “indistinguishable from the Indians”. So yes I’m guilty of painting all of the Spanish with too broad a brush. But ultimately, caste and color became the rule and has had an undeniable impact on what is the reality today. I do not deny nor intend to imply that the Spanish were not superior in approach to the indigenous than that of what we Americans continue to this very day. The Leyenda Negra was mainly an Anglo Protestant movement and I assure you that I am not Protestant. But, I am not focusing on the merits of the Spanish over the American view of the indigenous but rather on the ultimate impact on the lives of the indigenous in current day immigration issues. I apologize for my inaccuracies and for the unintended violation of your sensitivities. However, please do not allow that to obscure the issue at hand which for me is the plight of the poor and the indigenous currently crossing the US southern border which is rooted in the “European” experience. Spanish contact throughout the continent preexisted the colonies by something like 200 years. And, that contact had a devasting impact on the well-being and ability of the indigenous to defend themselves from the coming slaughter. Lastly, Oy Vey, was your German comment really necessary? Didn’t Spain have its own issues with the Jews? Please feel free to correct me anytime but I would hope that would come under the term “Enlightenment”.