Patterico's Pontifications

8/17/2010

Fear and loathing at the Ground Zero mosque

Filed under: General — Karl @ 11:37 am



[Posted by Karl]

There is plenty to go around, including among the defenders of the project. Their loathing explains their fear, so let’s start there. Cliff May captures much of the problem by reference to Paul Berman’s latest book, The Flight of the Intellectuals, which is largely devoted to examining how people were — and have been — duped into thinking Tariq Ramadan is a moderate Muslim leader:

Berman concludes that multiculturalism and moral relativism, doctrines devoutly embraced by the intellectual classes, render “everything the equal of everything else.” As a consequence, some very smart people have “lost the ability to make the most elementary distinctions.” Except one: They reflexively regard those from the Third World as virtuous and those from the West as steeped in blame, shame, and guilt.

So if Imam Feisal says he’s a moderate, he must be a moderate. Why read his books or inquire into what he preaches in his mosque or with whom he associates on his frequent trips to Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and other exotic locales? Would we ask such questions of a Baptist minister building a church near Ground Zero?

Pascal Bruckner, a French writer and philosopher — and veteran of the debate over Tariq Ramadan — has a piece in the new City Journal describing how this sort of self-loathing is paralyzing Europe — or more accurately, Europe’s ruling classes.

Bruckner contrasts Europe with the US, probably understating the degree to which similar forms of loathing have infected America’s ruling class (and its hangers-on in the establishment media). Ever since Stalin went out of fashion, America’s hard left has groped from one anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-Enlightenment, “noble savage” movement to the next: Mao, the Vietcong, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF, Castro, the Sandinistas, etc. America’s soft left has embraced the “noble savage” in its pop culture, from the lyrics of Joni Mitchell’s “Woodstock” to James Cameron’s Avatar (unsurprisingly, the pacifist version of the “noble savage” is found more readily in fiction than fact). Moreover, the blame, shame, and guilt of the soft left is fed by the propaganda of their friends on the hard left.

The common denominator is an antipathy to US foreign policy. Thus, when America favored Israel in the 1967 war, the New Left shifted in favor of Israel’s enemies. When Islamic fundamentalism returned as a force on the world stage, uber-leftists like Michel Foucault cheered the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The claimed grievances of the Islamists are those of the left, making for an alliance of convenience at the least. Thus, the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas are waved by people wearing Che Guevara T-shirts at most any anti-war or anti-globalization demonstration in the West to this day.

The left’s fear is that this agenda of loathing is political suicide in post-9/11 America, even among Democrats (as CNN’s poll on the Ground Zero mosque bears out). Indeed, it is an agenda so toxic that Pres. Obama — about as far left a president as our nation has ever had — has maintained and extended almost all of the Bush-era war policies he campaigned against as a candidate. But retreat is not really an option for the left on these issues.

For example, Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria asserts that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf “is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical — but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day.” I was unaware that The Huffington Post was a pillar of great and gentle wisdom on matters of interfaith dialogue. And the objections to Rauf go beyond one or two stray comments. But implicit in Zakaria’s “defense” is that if Rauf is beyond the pale, then perhaps what passes for dialogue at The Huffington Post is outside the mainstream — a conclusion that would clearly be unacceptable to the paranoid center-left that dominates the establishment media. Thus, Rauf must be a moderate.

With this sort of backwards reasoning from pre-ordained conclusions, the left begs one of the major questions raised not only by the Ground Zero mosque, but also by the war in general: What is moderate Islam? Reuel Marc Gerecht addressed that question at TNR, in the context of the Ground Zero mosque. After noting that the definition of a moderate Muslim differs from place to place, Gerecht suggests that an American definition of a “moderate Muslim” might start as: a believer who (a) unqualifiedly rejects terrorism against anyone (including Israelis); and (b) unqualifiedly renounces the applicability of the Sharia, the Holy Law, in American society.

The response from former SDS president Todd Gitlin was that Gerecht wants Rauf “to swear a sort of loyalty oath,” when all Gerecht wants to know is the nature of those with whom we are dealing. (At the HuffPo, Gerecht’s piece was described as the call for a Spanish Inquisition, which no one expected.) Notably, Gitlin makes no attempt to defend Rauf on part (a) of Gerecht’s suggested definition of a moderate as someone who renounces terrorism. Gitlin does attempt to defend Rauf on part (b). While conceding in passing that “[f]rom a strictly secular point of view, [Rauf] makes impermissible moves,” Gitlin fails to mention that Rauf is an open proponent of integrating sharia into the law of Western countries, like the legally binding sharia arbitration tribunals in the UK that dispense injustice to women in matters ranging from inheritance to domestic violence. Groups like Civitas and One Law for All question whether submission to the sharia courts is truly voluntary on the part of many women, particularly immigrants who may not speak English. Gitlin mentions none of these real-world consequences of Rauf’s agenda, just as he and other defenders are too afraid to openly discuss the rest of his record.

Gitlin’s “loyalty oath” analogy is inapt, yet telling in its allusion to the Cold War. During that period, leftists (as Gitlin well knows) took political refuge in the pose of being anti-anti-Communist. They seized upon the excesses of McCarthyism in an effort to discredit anti-Communism. The left’s hysterical tarring of all critics of the Ground Zero mosque as religious bigots may point to the incipient rise of anti-anti-Islamists, bent on discrediting anti-Islamism to distract the public from the left’s great political vulnerability on the war. That unwelcome development would have an impact far beyond the questions of whether Rauf is a moderate or the Ground Zero mosque is a bad idea.

–Karl

113 Responses to “Fear and loathing at the Ground Zero mosque”

  1. The left feels very comfortable these days in tarring with a broad brush.

    Icy Texan (4f3a8e)

  2. Reasons why this project has been shrouded in secrecy:

    http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/08/17/ground-zero-mosques-hidden-websites-follow-the-shariah/

    ian cormac (8e4d9a)

  3. Ask any moderate Muslim their take on Sharia law and gays and the treatment of women …

    If they don’t follow Sharia law in those cases then are they really Muslims ? I would venture to guess that most Imams would say they are not Muslims …

    Of course they hardly can denounce Islam since the ROP will put a price on their head for doing so … that Sharia law thingy again … darn …

    Jeff (488234)

  4. Karl – Another good post. Anybody discussing the GZM in good faith knows that it is not about the First Amendment. Once again, the left adopts it’s time worn tactic of, stop, pivot, distract, to avoid discussing the real issues at stake. Honesty is a tool that is still in mint condition in their toolbox.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  5. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! [Thanks to Monty Python.]

    509th Bob (58dde3)

  6. Well, the Obama Administration is full of the “unexpected”, isn’t it?

    AD - RtR/OS! (17dd7c)

  7. I’d really be interested in knowing which lefties are coming out in support of terrorism. So far I’ve yet to hear any.

    What I have heard is questions about what impact US policy has had, and is having on Islamic extremists.

    Conservatives don’t seem to want a serious discussion of that – they just want to screech about something to make political points and take advanatge of public fear of Muslims.

    Conservatives seem to have this idea that the United States can do whatever it wants with impugnity and the rest of the world can go to hell. The real world doesn’t work that way.

    This screechig over Cordoba House plays right into the terrorists hands. I’m expecting a video from some al-quada terrorist any day now talking about how the Americans all hate Muslims, which justifies their ‘jihad’ against us.

    I already know the responses I’ll get. You’ll be telling me to STFU, and that I’m a terror supporter, that the left is naive and/or anti-American for saying anything in support of Muslims, they all want to kill/subject us, Sharia law in the US is their goal, etc.

    Black and white is nice; it makes it quite simple to view the world in your own terms.

    JEA (cfcb76)

  8. “they just want to screech about something to make political points and take advanatge of public fear of Muslims.”

    JEA – Is it taking advantage of public fears of muslims when we have had multiple successful and unsuccessful terrorist attacks in this country within the past year and promises of more from the terrorist leaders overseas? Is it fear of muslims not to acknowledge we have Islamic terrorists infiltrating our Southern border on a frequent basis? Is it taking advantage of muslim fears when the feckless media in this country is afraid to publish cartoons of Mohammad or seriously discuss criticisms of Islam?

    When you actually want to have a serious discussion, give us a heads up.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  9. JEA pre-emptively slaughtered some strawpeople. Nifty, that.

    JD (3dc31c)

  10. This screechig over Cordoba House plays right into the terrorists hands.

    JEA – you hit the nail on the head. It is a win for jihadists regardless of the outcome, isn’t it? Now remind again of the moderate stance of the imman who is pushing this building. He is off to the Middle East as a representative of the American Muslim community, and to do fund raising for this mosque in places like Saudi Arabia. How do you think the Wahhabists are viewing this mosque? As a sign of bridge building to America or as a sign of Islamic conquest?

    Take some time to research the source of funding for the majority of mosques built in the US in the past few decades and the brand of Islam being taught in them. Then we can talk some more about this.

    in_awe (44fed5)

  11. Let me add that the imman’s trip is being funded by the American taxpayers through a State Department program…now, what is the name of the tax that “non-believers” must pay as tribute to their Islamic masters?

    in_awe (44fed5)

  12. JEA is just taking his talking points from Norah O’Donnell and Anita Dunn.

    JD (3dc31c)

  13. And yet, JEA, notable Muslims in both the United States and Canada are now on record as to why they feel the building of a mosque so close to ground zero is a mistake and a bad faith move.

    And unlike you and your fellow liberated thinkers, there are millions in this country who believe that the greater impugning in this case is being shown by the planners of Cordoba House who apparently don’t give a damn about how those who lost loved ones or anyone else who still feels strongly about the nightmare foisted on us on 9/11.

    You and your enlightened brethren rush to support one or two offended atheists in their fight to erase over 200+ years of American tradition and ban the mere appearance of anything smacking of religion through a grotesque twisting of the “separation” argument, yet you scream “first amendment!” when a non-Christian group plans a monument whose location is offensive to millions, and with good reason.

    Finally, I would hope that our country never reaches such a low point that its every decision is based on whether it might lead some third-world lunatic to become a martyr.

    Dagwood (a5ca73)

  14. JEA needs to talk to the folks waving those Hezbollah and Hamas flags.

    But beyond that, lefties are going to jump on the anti-anti-Islamist stance. JEA missed the whole point there. Shocka.

    Karl (f07e38)

  15. If they were truly moderate Muslims, wishing only diaglogue, would they not recognize how bad of an idea this is, how inconsiderate it is, and simply move it elsewhere?

    JD (3dc31c)

  16. Abdul MoCarthyism!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  17. It’s the right implying that all Muslims are terrorists.

    Do you believe all Muslims are/support terrorists or not?

    Do you believe we’re at war with the entire religion of Islam or one extreme branch of it?

    Dagwood,

    “You and your enlightened brethren rush to support one or two offended atheists in their fight to erase over 200+ years of American tradition and ban the mere appearance of anything smacking of religion through a grotesque twisting of the “separation” argument, yet you scream “first amendment!” when a non-Christian group plans a monument whose location is offensive to millions, and with good reason.”

    I’d like to know when I ever said that, implied it, or even brought that topic up.

    You put me into that group pretty quickly.

    And it makes it quite easy for you to be dismissive without actually discussing anything at all. “That f—ing dumb -ss is just like all those other f—ing dumb -ss liberals.”

    Convenient for you. Intellectually dishonest of you all, but quite convenient.

    “there are millions in this country who believe that the greater impugning in this case is being shown by the planners of Cordoba House who apparently don’t give a damn about how those who lost loved ones or anyone else who still feels strongly about the nightmare foisted on us on 9/11.”

    I read quite a few bios of the people murdered on 9/11 when the NYT published them. Good-hearted people, all of them, a lot of whom were involved in their communities and did charity work. Tragically murdered by crazed killers.

    A lot of conservatives say they’re speaking for them, but I wonder what the people who died on 9/11 would say about this issue?

    JEA (cfcb76)

  18. No, JEA, they are not implying that all Muslims are terrorists. That is a construct that consists solely in the head of leftists. The only intellectual dishonesty here, JEA, is the imagined positions that you are asserting we hold.

    JEA studiously ignores the words from the families of those that were murdered on 9/11, and from actual moderate Muslims who point out what a bad idea this is.

    Please, JEA, continue slaughtering those strawpeople.

    JD (3dc31c)

  19. A lot of conservatives say they’re speaking for them, but I wonder what the people who died on 9/11 would say about this issue?

    You can’t be serious.

    And by the way, why do you choose to ignore that increasing numbers of Muslims are also choosing to speak out against the location of the proposed mosque/center? And since polls indicate that nearly 70% of Americans are against the location of the proposed Cordoba House, would you now argue that at least 69% of the country must be made up of rabid close-minded conservatives?

    Dagwood (a5ca73)

  20. The strawman argument from the right is that they only oppose this mosque because it’s sacred ground – yet conservatives are also protesting mosques in Tenn, Wis, and Calif.

    So pick one – either you’re at war with the whole damn religion or not.

    And I’m sure a hell of a lot more than 69% of the country supported shipping the Japs off to Montana and Utah. I’d be willing to wager a hell of a lot more than 69% supported the Indian wars and Manifest Destiny.

    That didn’t make it right.

    JEA (cfcb76)

  21. False choices are such a cute rhetorical device.

    JD (3dc31c)

  22. ==This screechig (sic)over Cordoba House…==

    Doesn’t the mere fact that they were going to call it Cordobaa House give anyone pause? Cordoba was the capitol of the Islamic Caliphate at the height of its power and conquests. Doesn’t that seem just a tad provocotive?

    elissa (0ddc7b)

  23. “So pick one – either you’re at war with the whole damn religion or not.”

    So JEA, if you support the mosque you support terrorism, or you don’t support the mosque at that location. Am I following your logic?

    I don’t support the mosque at that location. There is already one two blocks away. This is a needless provocation that burns bridges rather than builds them.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  24. I don’t know or care about mosques being built in TN, WI or CA, or the reasons behind the resistance in those cases. And it’s a cop-out on your part to try to dismiss any opposition to the ground-zero mosque because of other cases.

    Please try just once to understand. It is not just conservatives who are against the Cordoba House. It is moderates, hopefully even some liberals, and the opposition certainly includes other members of the Muslim community. Even prominent Democratic leaders are now speaking out against it.

    And the issue has absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese internment of 70 years ago, or what the majority of citizens may have thought about it at the time.

    Incidentally, I believe that you are the one who chose to introduce partisan politics into this discussion. Why can’t you honestly argue the merits of one side without resorting to constantly harping, “Just because conservatives think/oppose/….”

    You’ve killed so many strawpeople today that you’ve run out of straws to grasp at.

    Dagwood (a5ca73)

  25. A lot of conservatives say they’re speaking for them, but I wonder what the people who died on 9/11 would say about this issue?

    Deborah Burlingame has represented the families of those killed on 9/11, and to this day no one has contradicted her column that appeared in the WSJ.

    http://stopthe911mosque.com/2010/08/14/911-families-stunned-presidents-support-of-mosque-at-ground-zero/

    You really are an ignorant slut, aren’t you?

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  26. Even Harry Reid thinks you are an idiot, JEA. Simply dismissing any opposition as JEA does is easier for him.

    JD (ffe6ea)

  27. And I’m sure a hell of a lot more than 69% of the country supported shipping the Japs off to Montana and Utah. I’d be willing to wager a hell of a lot more than 69% supported the Indian wars and Manifest Destiny.
    That didn’t make it right.

    Then move out of the country and go back to wherever your ancestors came from, if you honestly feel that the existence of the United States is illegitimate.

    I’m getting sick and tired of lefties who preen about their supposed moral superiority in condemning the very past that’s put them in, and allows them to continue to reap the benefits of, living here.

    You’re a hypocrite, JEA, plain and simple. If you had half the principles and integrity you claim to possess, you’d have packed your bags and headed off to a land more suited to your personal tastes a long time ago. Apparently even you have a price.

    Intellectually dishonest of you all, but quite convenient.

    You just described your whole political philosophy in one sentence. Bravo.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  28. I think Mark Steyn puts his finger on what is really the problem with this multi culti silliness:

    > Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn’t involve knowing anything about other cultures–the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It’s fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don’t want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It’s a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.

    And I love the “multi cultural” approach of a british officer when stationed India and confronted with their tradition of murdering widows when their husbands died:

    > General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: “You say that your custom is to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

    By the way, suddenly the Indians lost their love of their culture.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  29. Comment by JEA — 8/17/2010 @ 12:10 pm
    7. I’d really be interested in knowing which lefties are coming out in support of terrorism. So far I’ve yet to hear any.
    — Perhaps you haven’t been properly introduced: Mr, Ayers? Mr. Jack E Ass.

    What I have heard is questions about what impact US policy has had, and is having on Islamic extremists.
    — Don’t worry. US guns, tanks, artillery, and bombs are having plenty of impact.

    Conservatives don’t seem to want a serious discussion of that – they just want to screech about something to make political points and take advanatge of public fear of Muslims.
    — The ONE time that liberals cannot conceive of the “politically correct” thing to do . . .

    Conservatives seem to have this idea that the United States can do whatever it wants with impugnity(sic) and the rest of the world can go to hell. The real world doesn’t work that way.
    — Are we not part of the real world? Nice ad hominem there, buddy. Means nothing.

    This screechig over Cordoba House plays right into the terrorists hands. I’m expecting a video from some al-quada terrorist any day now talking about how the Americans all hate Muslims, which justifies their ‘jihad’ against us.
    — Me too! Because up until now none of them has ever done anything like that; right?

    I already know the responses I’ll get. You’ll be telling me to STFU, and that I’m a terror supporter, that the left is naive and/or anti-American for saying anything in support of Muslims, they all want to kill/subject us, Sharia law in the US is their goal, etc.
    — It only makes you sound stupider (if that’s possible) to presuppose the responses. STFU? Nope. You go right on proving how naive the left is. You’re not necessarily anti-American; anti common sense, definitely. And if you’ve bothered to notice, we’re careful not to use the word “all” when referring to a group of people; we leave that kind of stereotyping up to the libs. Sharia law in the US is the stated goal of the radicals. There’s nothing to “debate” on that point.

    Black and white is nice; it makes it quite simple to view the world in your own terms.
    — I was about to ask what color the sky is in your world. Thanks in advance!

    Icy Texan (4f3a8e)

  30. Obama is a much more ardent defender of the Muslim faith than of the United States.
    Barack Hussein Obama has spent much of his Presidency apologizing for the United States. Can you remember when he last apologized for the faith of his father; for the religion he grew up in while living as child overseas? Is there no aspect of this faith that deserves criticism?

    Moneyrunner (53e425)

  31. As Norah O’Donnell told us today, if we don’t let them win, they win, and if you oppose them, you are a terrorist.

    JD (326b58)

  32. Comment by JEA — 8/17/2010 @ 1:08 pm
    17. It’s the right implying that all Muslims are terrorists.
    — No, it’s YOU implying that the right is implying it.

    Do you believe all Muslims are/support terrorists or not?
    — Nope. However, when there are three times the number of them as there are of us, it doesn’t have to be “all” in order for those that are to be dangerous.

    Do you believe we’re at war with the entire religion of Islam or one extreme branch of it?
    — You already know the answer to that. We are at war with people that are ALL fanatical Muslims.

    I read quite a few bios of the people murdered on 9/11 when the NYT published them. Good-hearted people, all of them, a lot of whom were involved in their communities and did charity work. Tragically murdered by crazed killers.
    — Youy can’t beat this kind of sarcastic snark with a stick. Really. Anybody care to try?

    A lot of conservatives say they’re speaking for them, but I wonder what the people who died on 9/11 would say about this issue?
    — Citations please.

    Icy Texan (4f3a8e)

  33. “I wonder what the people who died on 9/11 would say about this issue?”

    JEA – Ask John Edwards, he channels dead people.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  34. Icy – JEA “wonders” what they would think, because once he found out what they thought, his silly little construct would crumble under the weight of its own douchenozzlery.

    JD (326b58)

  35. Comment by JEA — 8/17/2010 @ 1:25 pm
    20. The strawman argument from the right is that they only oppose this mosque because it’s sacred ground – yet conservatives are also protesting mosques in Tenn, Wis, and Calif.
    — Haven’t quite got the strawman concept down yet, but that’s okay. A little bit of self-reflection will do the trick. *sigh* Just to play out the string: citations please.

    So pick one – either you’re at war with the whole damn religion or not.
    — Multiple simultaneous (ooo!) protests constitute being at war with the whole religion? Sim-ple.

    And I’m sure a hell of a lot more than 69% of the country supported shipping the Japs off to Montana and Utah. I’d be willing to wager a hell of a lot more than 69% supported the Indian wars and Manifest Destiny.
    That didn’t make it right.

    — So, what IS the price difference between apples and strawmen?

    Icy Texan (4f3a8e)

  36. Hey, EPWJ, look! It’s Another Chris!

    No, no — the real one.

    No, really!

    Icy Texan (4f3a8e)

  37. The interesting fact in all this posturing is the self hatred of people like JEA. “Manifest Destiny” was a bad idea. Really ? You’d prefer Mexico with its enlightened democracy to occupy the west coast ?

    The Indians of the plains were a hunter gatherer society that would never be able to compete with a modern society (in 1877). They didn’t even have horses until the Spanish brought them in the 1500s. How many of you lefty intellectuals knew that ?

    The self hatred is a psychological phenomenon worth studying. Why do these people like JEA hate themselves ? This explains Europe but the US intellectual is still a potential subject for analysis.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  38. You’d prefer Mexico with its enlightened democracy to occupy the west coast ?

    Yes, we’d be much better off with the one – party kleptocracy of Mexico. There would be no more wars, and no more poverty, and everyone would fart out cinnamon buns for all!

    comment by jerkoffentrailsarsehole (JEA)

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  39. I think this anti-Muslim bile pretty much proves that right-wingers never cared about “liberating” the Iraqi people and just had a huge hard-on for post-9/11 vengeance, no matter how misdirected.

    AJB (d64738)

  40. “right-wingers never cared about “liberating” the Iraqi people and just had a huge hard-on for post-9/11 vengeance”

    AJB – There was a lot of anger left over from the first Iraq War and Saddam’s failure to comply the terms of its cease fire. How many U.N. Resolutions do you think somebody should be able to ignore before force is used?

    Remember also that Democrats voted against the first Iraq War when one of our closest allies in the region was invaded.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  41. “So, what IS the price difference between apples and strawmen?”

    I dunno – your stupidity?

    JEA (476fee)

  42. Obviously, massacring Indians was a good thing. It’s just those damn ingrate natives didn’t appreciate all we did for ’em, did they?

    “You’d prefer Mexico with its enlightened democracy to occupy the west coast ?”

    Last I checked, Oregon and Washington were never part of Mexico. Nor the Dakotas, nor Idaho, nor Missouri, nor Illinois, nor Michigan, nor Minnesota, nor Montana.

    I guess geography isn’t your strong point.

    As for the ‘self-loathing’ part, I always wonder why conservatives always have this need to justify America’s past mistakes, as though we’ve never made any?

    It wouldn’t be compensation for something you lack, would it?

    JEA (476fee)

  43. Obviously, massacring Indians was a good thing. It’s just those damn ingrate natives didn’t appreciate all we did for ‘em, did they?

    Obviously, you seem to believe you’re doing them a favor by occupying their land.

    Another Chris (2e9afa)

  44. Fuckin-A, Bubba.

    That’s some tasty valuable and right proper wisdom there.

    Very well said, tho in so many ways it speaks to a great upheaval in this country in the coming years.

    Mike D (cfd823)

  45. Typical. When the trolls find that they’re ill-equipped to debate those evil angry mindless right-wingers, they resort to the name-calling that they pleaded against at the outset.

    Why don’t you guys flee back to Kos and HuffPo, where you’re not at such a disadvantage?

    Dagwood (1c4f03)

  46. This screechig [sic] over Cordoba House plays right into the terrorists hands. I’m expecting a video from some al-quada terrorist any day now talking about how the Americans all hate Muslims, which justifies their ‘jihad’ against us.

    OMG.

    For godsake, terrorists don’t need and/or are not looking for any justification for their behavior.

    These are not rational people who give a whit about what the world thinks of them. Are you kidding?

    They already know the hoped for outcome, believe in it’s righteousness, and will let nothing get in the way of their success.

    To assume they are looking for justification or want some sort of cover for their behavior is utter foolishness and naivete.

    And, if they do grab onto GZM issue and start screaming about it, so what? Who cares. Here’s the point: We should not care what terrorists think and believe. They are terrorists. By default, they deserve nothing but our condemnation and wrath.

    However, there are those who believe we should try to understand their motivations and reach out to them. And that asininity and idiocy is what they are counting on. So much easier to kill lambs than lions.

    But what do I know, I’m just an ingrate native.

    Dana the Ingrate Native (8ba2fb)

  47. AJB and JEA are having their own little circle-jerk, while wailing, gnashing their teeth, and rending their garments, all while arguing with positions not taken, unless you count the voices in their heads.

    Remember when JEA had the audacity to claim he was not partisan?

    JD (3dc31c)

  48. Barcky thinks that JEA and AJB are imbeciles too. He took about his 5th position in about as many days today.

    JD (3dc31c)

  49. Last I checked, Oregon and Washington were never part of Mexico.

    Oregon was once part of Mexican territory, you illiterate hack. As soon as they discovered the Lewis & Clark expedition, they sent a small contingent of troops that attempted to intercept their progress into the Oregon territory. They missed them by just a few days, and after that the game was up. Quite the fool, you are.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  50. Dmac, you have won the prize. I’m not sure what it is, but you win it.

    And the idea that just because some sections of this continent had not yet been Mexican, they never would be, ignores a lot of Mexican history. Indeed, the vacuum would have been filled, one way or the other. I’m not happy with everything the US Government did, of course. JEA’s pretending you all are wanting to murder natives is simply foolish. But being in the USA would be a lot better than many alternatives.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. Comment by ian cormac — 8/17/2010 @ 11:47 am

    That was a great link. I’m still not sure why Bloomberg et al don’t seem to be concerned about the Sharia component of this project. Denial? Relief they’re not women? Or just so blindingly ignorant they don’t fully grasp the danger?

    I’m reminded of Wafa Sultan who said after living 30 years under Sharia,

    “Under Sharia, we have no rights, we are treated as second class citizens because a woman is a not a full person. We don’t have the mental ability to control our lives, so our lives must be controlled by imams.”

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  52. “I’d really be interested in knowing which lefties are coming out in support of terrorism. So far I’ve yet to hear any.”–An idiot

    “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.” – Michael Moore

    One of about a zillion examples of “American”, left wing scum cheerleading for terrorists and against their own country.

    This is also an illustration of the fantastic predictive powers of quasi-human, leftoid trash.

    Dave Surls (57bbfd)

  53. “That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”–A left wing skank (I know, I know, skank is redundant) commenting on the murder and mutilation, by terrorists, of American contractors in Iraq

    Another “American” lefty expressing his wholehearted approved of terrorism and the murder of Americans by the Islamo-trash in Iraq.

    Dave Surls (57bbfd)

  54. “If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.”–Ward Churhill commenting on the murder of thouands of innocent people on 9/11/01

    Yet another lefty who not only endorsed the murder of thousands of innocent Americans by Islamo-scum terrorists, but also compared the victims to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, and said that not only were their deaths well deserved, but that he couldn’t think of a more appropriate penalty.

    Dave Surls (57bbfd)

  55. Thank you, Mr. Surls.

    Icy Texan (4f3a8e)

  56. JEA – Would you like to buy some War Bonds?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  57. “Thank you, Mr. Surls.”

    You’re welcome.

    Dave Surls (57bbfd)

  58. I believe one of the “scum” in question was the immortal Markos from Kosland.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  59. Oh yes, we got what we deserved. Did you not know that? Our chickens came home to roost!

    Icy Texan (4f3a8e)

  60. I think this anti-Muslim bile

    One of the reasons a conversation is so difficult with an ignorant leftist is that you are never on the same page. In fact, I have scoured this page up and down to find this “anti-Muslim” bile, and can’t find it. The conclusion that I draw is that projection isn’t just a mental aberration, but part of the very fabric of leftism.

    #50 Dustin:

    But being in the USA would be a lot better than many alternatives.

    In fact, some of those alternatives are available for examination~we can compare the lot of the native inhabitants in the Russian Far East and Alaska for a look at how they fared after both had been subject to Russian colonization, and we can look at the condition of the natives of the Pacific Northwest above and below the border in British Columbia.

    I don’t have any special knowledge to impart about those groups or the condition of their lives now, but I would suppose that someone probably has gathered the data that would make such comparisons possible.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  61. From the inestimable Bill Whittle Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check. As noted in one of the comments at the link:

    Islam is not just some religion. It is a political/religious/cultural system that seeks to subjugate and destroy all other systems. For 1300 years they have violently conquered one place after another. At times the West has gotten its act together and beat back the savages. However that doesn’t change the fact that Islam is bent on global domination. Our freedom and Islam can not exist peacefully.

    Radical Islam wants you dead.

    Mainstream Islam wants you subjugated, then dead.

    Horatio (55069c)

  62. #61 Horatio:

    Mainstream Islam wants you subjugated, then dead.

    That isn’t quite my understanding~which is that if you are a member of certain groups, then you are to be subjugated. If you are a member of other groups, for example Jews and apparently any people with whom Mohammed had not heard of, you are to be dead.

    Of course, if you are in the “to be dead” class, I suppose that you could be subjugated first.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  63. EW1(SG) – Is getting “subjugated” like one of those optional things you pay for at a Gentlemen’s Club or am I confusing it with something else?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  64. #63 daleyrocks:

    or am I confusing it with something else?

    No, it is very similar, except that you cannot put on your clothes and go home at the end of the evening when things become too painful.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  65. “Obviously, massacring Indians was a good thing.”

    Says you.

    I think it was a real bad thing, and that’s why I’m not too tempted to go down to Sand Creek and build a temple to the Colorado militia, and then claim I’m doing it to “reach out” to the Cheyenne and Arapaho.

    Dave Surls (57bbfd)

  66. ___________________________________

    Ever since Stalin went out of fashion, America’s hard left has groped from one anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-Enlightenment, “noble savage” movement to the next: Mao, the Vietcong, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF, Castro, the Sandinistas, etc.

    In the left’s mind, feelings of do-gooderism and compassion absolve any number of sins and screw ups. So they perceive their big hearts and teary eyes, no matter how misplaced and misapplied (and phony), as allowing them to never have to say they’re sorry.

    There is a percentage of conservatives who will rationalize and excuse away undeserving people and places that, for any number of reasons, arouses rightist sympathies. But that kind of ass-backwards sentiment is taken to a whole different level — to a knuckleheaded extreme — by liberals (uh, excuse me—progressives).

    Nothing more foolish and dangerous than people who can’t assess things accurately and properly. That’s why so many liberals have a knack for making a big mess of things—from issues that run the gamut from public education to law enforcement, from economics to religion, from Honduras to the former Soviet Union.

    Mark (411533)

  67. EW1(SG) @ 64 – Good to know I still have a few brain cells left. Thanks.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  68. Yet another lefty who not only endorsed the murder of thousands of innocent Americans by Islamo-scum terrorists,

    When I think of people like Ward Churchill, Jeremiah Wright (and his former close buddy—ie the guy now in the White House) or JEA, I can’t help but muse what this says about human nature, and how it’s either helped or hindered by the amount of a person’s common sense and rational sympathies…

    Reason.com, December 2006:

    [Arthur C.] Brooks [a public policy professor at Syracuse University] finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn’t explained by income differential — in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don’t just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts.

    The people who give the least are the young, especially young liberals. Brooks writes that “young liberals — perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today — are one of the least generous demographic groups out there…. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood.”… He writes that young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, “a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love.”

    Mark (411533)

  69. It wouldn’t be compensation for something you lack, would it?

    Comment by JEA

    Gosh, I don’t know JEA. I have 5 kids. What do you lack ?

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  70. Dmac, #49: don’t give the fellow too much of a hard time. I’ll bet he never had any World History course. Other than excerpts from Zinn the Stalinist’s little treatise.

    It’s just Rousseau Gone Wild: Western Civ is terrible, and non-Western Civ rocks the hizzie. I think it is a form of daddy hatred or something similar, because it just doesn’t make sense.

    I mean, I tried to leave a note about this, but it didn’t take. 15,000 years ago, there were lots and lots of big animals in North America. There weren’t by the time the Europeans came. Heck, there used to be wild horses. The original Native Americans ate them all..no more horses until the Spaniards brought them over during the 16th Century.

    But wait! Only Westerners commit horrific ecological crimes! Global warming! Oil spills!

    My point is that JEA sees everything through a progressivist lens…and then blames others for being prejudiced in their views.

    Sigh.

    Of course, he could read a book.

    Eric Blair (28f3dc)

  71. #70 Eric Blair:

    Of course, he could read a book.

    Uhm, no, I don’t think so.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  72. C’mon, guys. JEA just wants honest non-partisan dialogue.

    JD (3dc31c)

  73. #62 EW1(SG):

    Islam requires that Moslems rule everyone. Kuffar (non-Moslems) who submit to Moslem rule may be tolerated, if they acknowledge the supremacy of Islam (including shariah law) and pay jizya (tribute to the Moslem rulers). Such kuffar are dhimmi, and not to be molested. Kuffar who resist Moslem rule must be destroyed. At the very least, they are fit targets for plunder and slavery, as the Barbary pirates told the U.S. emissary.

    The Koran clearly draws upon the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Islam recognizes that Jews and Christians are not mere idol-worshiping heathens; they are “People of the Book”, entitled to more tolerance than outright pagans.

    Just as Christendom permitted the survival of Jewish communities during the Middle Ages (while universally stamping out paganism), so Islam has allowed Christian and Jewish communities to persist. Both Christian and Moslem tolerance has required submission and been frequently interrupted by fits of persecution; but until the late 20th century there were substantial Jewish communities in many Moslem countries, and there still are some Christian communities (notably the Coptic Christians of Egypt).

    However, even “tolerant” Moslem rulers visited abuses on non-Moslem subjects (such as the Ottoman practice of seizing Christian boys for indoctrination into their Janizary corps).

    And in the last 40 years, Saudi oil money has funded extensive missionizing by the Wahhabi sect, which is notoriously aggressive and intolerant. In many parts of the world, where Moslem communities had lived peacefully with non-Moslem neighbors, Wahhabi preaching has stirred up violence. The Saudi bankroll allows Wahhabis to control Islamic activities in Europe and America, and to call the tune at Islamic institutions such as Egypt’s Al-Azhar University.

    Wahhabism is a flavor of Sunni Islam, and is intensely hostile to the Shi’a Islam of Iran; but the ayatollahs use their own oil money to manipulate Shi’ite communities around the world and push their own forms of extremism.

    Rich Rostrom (f7aeae)

  74. “Yet another lefty who not only endorsed the murder of thousands of innocent Americans by Islamo-scum terrorists…”

    Of course. I hope they kill a lot more. Becuase I hate America. I am a seekrit commie/socialist/terrorsit sympathizer. America is the worst country in the world. We need the govt to take over everything and dictate our lives. Christianity is the worst religion in the world. It should be abolished. The Pope should be tried for war crimes. I am happy to see gays rape children. I long for the day that Sharia becomes the ultimate law of the land. I hope Iran invades and takes us over. Long live the Revolution – I don’t care which one, as long as it’s not American.

    Oops, guess that’s out of the bag. Because all you third-graders find it so much easier to name-call than seriously discuss anything.

    The intellectually peurile and bankrupt have found their ideal home here at Patterico.

    JEA (1eb0e1)

  75. JEA:
    I am a seekrit commie/socialist/terrorsit sympathizer.
    — Secret’s been out for awhile.

    The intellectually peurile and bankrupt have found their ideal home here at Patterico.
    — Welcome home.

    Icy Texan (f3f4df)

  76. That is convenient for you, isn’t it, JEA? Simply dismiss all criticism as childish and absent content, and then mow down another field of strawmen. The notion that you want actual debate is laughable, as you have not demonstrated your desire or ability to engage in such. This faux moral high ground you claim exists only in your imagination.

    JD (c17fba)

  77. Careful, or SanFranNan might have you investigated for opposing the mosque. I mean community outreach center. It is not a mosque. No way. No how.

    JD (c17fba)

  78. “That is convenient for you, isn’t it, JEA?”

    When someone says I endorse the murder of 3200+ people on 9/11 (see ‘Dave Surls’ no. 54), I tend to get a little defensive. And since his response is intellectually bankrupt, that’s what I’m going to tell him.

    And then I get the ‘strawman’ answer, which is quite convenient for you, JD, otherwise I’d get some response beyond that. But I don’t. So go build a strawman.

    JEA (1eb0e1)

  79. When someone says I endorse the murder of 3200+ people on 9/11 (see ‘Dave Surls’ no. 54), I tend to get a little defensive.

    I guess you must have skipped that course in “Nuance 101” that all of you superior libs take such pride in.

    You try to paint anyone who disputes the building of a mosque at that particular site as being anti-Muslim, and when someone turns your shallow sorry tactic against you, it flies right over your head.

    Surprise, surprise, surprise. You were defensive before you posted your first comment on here.

    Dagwood (446cda)

  80. Because all you third-graders find it so much easier to name-call than seriously discuss anything.

    True projection on display here – said by an individual who was so wholly ignorant of the history of North American settlement that he actually believed that the areas now called California and Oregon were never part of Mexico. I’d ask him to try to read some objective accounts of this period of history, but I don’t know which editions of Highlights for Children would be appropriate for someone of his cognitive level.

    It’s also instructive that after being pwned via his own statements yesterday, he neglects to come back until he’s had his pacifier and milk and cookies to soothe his widdle bloody nose.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  81. Not to pile on, but…

    “…Because all you third-graders find it so much easier to name-call than seriously discuss anything….”

    That ranks right up there with “I work here is done.”

    Eric Blair (28f3dc)

  82. “When someone says I endorse the murder of 3200+ people on 9/11 (see ‘Dave Surls’ no. 54)…”

    I didn’t say any such thing, liar.

    You said you would be interested in hearing about lefties who support terrorism, so I gave you some examples, in an obviously futile attempt to correct your stultifying ignorance.

    I didn’t say a word about what you endorse.

    All I said about you is that you’re an idiot, which is God’s simple truth.

    Dave Surls (69f376)

  83. [The intellectual classes] reflexively regard those from the Third World as virtuous and those from the West as steeped in blame, shame, and guilt

    I find this interesting because the Third World has embraced Christianity wholeheartedly. Indeed, the average Christian today lives in the Third World and will experience violence persecution at some point in her life. The intellectual classes love the Third Worlders but despise their religion.

    Jim S. (522db5)

  84. Dmac, please see map from Univ of Southern FL:

    http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/2600/2689/2689.pdf

    The United States acquired CA, NV, AR, NM, UT, TX, parts of WY, the OK panhandle and a small corner of KS from Mexico.

    JEA (1eb0e1)

  85. Not reading for comprehension is likely to cause you problems in life, JEA. Hell, you did not even pay attention to your own words. You had your panties in a bunch before you typed Comment #7.

    JD (1ecb57)

  86. JEA, you have no place lecturing dmac. He pointed out you are flat wrong on your premise, not to mention you were stretching badly to suggest Mexico would never grow beyond where it had, if the USA had not expanded.

    And yeah, it’s one of the greatest blessings North America has ever known that whatever regions would have been Mexican are now American.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  87. Oregon was once part of Mexican territory, you illiterate hack. As soon as they discovered the Lewis & Clark expedition, they sent a small contingent of troops that attempted to intercept their progress into the Oregon territory. They missed them by just a few days, and after that the game was up.

    Huh?

    At the time of the Lewis & Clark expedition, the territory now known as Mexico was still part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain.

    The Viceroyalty of New Spain didn’t extend up to Oregon. It claimed control over all of California, but part of the northern California coast was actually under Russian control.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  88. At the time of the Lewis & Clark expedition, the territory now known as Mexico was still part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain.

    Oh, for goodness sakes, I’m well aware of the power that was behind the throne of Mexico. But they did indeed consider the entire Northwest a part of that territory, or else why did they furiously dispatch an armed force in order to halt Lewis & Clark’s progress? I honestly think that’s just naive to assume anything else. Colonial powers in that period always behaved in this manner, and the only thing that prevented all – out war with them regarding our settlers in CA was the fact that they were a power in decline at that time.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  89. Dmac, please see map from Univ of Southern FL

    Did you actually read the annotated notes accompanying the map, oh brilliant one? Jeebus, but you’re as dense as you are bloviating.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  90. But they did indeed consider the entire Northwest a part of that territory

    They may have considered it. But they never exercised effective control of regions north of San Francisco (on the coast) or the northern end of the Sacramento valley (inland). They had no settlements or military outposts. The writ of their law did not run.

    [Note that I also think that it’s inappropriate to refer to ‘new spain’ and ‘mexico’ as being the same thing – the governing classes of the two states were quite different, and mexico really was not just a continuation of new spain under another name.]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  91. But what I need to know is whether that Zorro movie w/ Antonio Banderas had the Mexico/Spain thing correct. Because I suspect artistic license was taken.

    Karl (6f26cc)

  92. Regardless of of whether or not Mexico or New spain controlled any particular area yet, they would have gained that territory eventually.

    That’s the point.

    And Zorro sucked.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  93. They may have considered it. But they never exercised effective control of regions north of San Francisco (on the coast) or the northern end of the Sacramento valley (inland). They had no settlements or military outposts. The writ of their law did not run.

    Heck, their control of most of the American southwest was pretty tenuous both before and after the revolution. Cali was only calmer, relatively speaking, because the Spainiards had managed to pacify the Indian tribes there. In Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, life was pretty tenuous–the Navajo raided Santa Fe on a regular basis long before Americans ever got there (and vice versa), the Apaches controlled most of Arizona, the Comanches most of Texas, and the Utes and Navajo the rest of it. If you settled outside close proximity to the missions or military outposts, you were taking your life in your hands.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  94. I have a map you might be interested in. It is a map of missions in the southwest. They are very thick until north of San Diego. The map is dated 1863, as I recall. It is in storage at the moment as I am moving. There is a misapprehension by many that the southwest was empty. That is not true. I collect old maps of the west and have one that shows nothing north of Monterrey. Terra Incognita. It predates the discovery of San Francisco Bay.

    It is dated 1746. The area, including much Indian fighting, was settled by Spain although they did not bring families, for the most part. Like the French, they took Indian mistresses while the wife was either in Spain or south in Cuernavaca.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  95. It’s amusing that the history discussion was prompted by JEA’s ignorant comment about Manifest Destiny. My daughter was at U of Arizona two years before she got sick of the 24/7 PC teaching by grad students. The stuff kids get in universities today isn’t even a PC version of the truth. It’s lies !

    At one point, she was taught that settlers in the southwest learned to survive by imitating the Indians. Now, the Iroquois were very advanced tribes and some even used glass in their windows and had grist mills for grinding corn by 1763. They made a catastrophic mistake by joining the French side in the War of the Spanish Succession, which became the “French and Indian War” as a result. That was in New England.

    The Plains Indians were hunter gatherers who knew nothing about agriculture (Except the Navajo) and who did not have the wheel. As I previously pointed out, they did not even have the horse until 1600 or later. This sort of thing is utter nonsense but they were taught this along with such “facts” as the “Silent Majority” of Nixon were whites who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and who wanted to go back to Laizzes Faire economics.

    This does the kids no favors as the more inquisitive will learn they’ve been lied to.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  96. Regardless of of whether or not Mexico or New spain controlled any particular area yet, they would have gained that territory eventually.

    Dustin, thank you for clarifying my earlier point more succinctly than I did (apparently). This was not an argument over semantics.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  97. I thought you were pretty dad gum clear, dmac. Here’s how it works, though: you make a clear argument that is tough to overcome. Some detail that does not determine the argument is then discussed. Even if you’re right on that detail, the next 20 comments about it distract from the actual argument.

    ====================-*
    The more you know

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  98. “But what I need to know is whether that Zorro movie w/ Antonio Banderas had the Mexico/Spain thing correct.”

    Karl – Bro. Zorro was a surfer dude. Check it out.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  99. Regardless of of whether or not Mexico or New spain controlled any particular area yet, they would have gained that territory eventually.

    I don’t think that’s clear.

    Oregon and Washington (and, honestly, northern California) were actively contested by the British right up through the 1850s.

    In an alternate history wherein Mexico hadn’t ceded its inherited claim to the US, it’s highly doubtful that they would have been able to successfully prevent the British from taking control of the territory.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  100. Hmmm, Britain had a few warships up in BC protecting their Hudson trading posts, but it would have taken them months to get anything substantial in place to prevent a hostile country that’s endemic to the continent from settling the area. Hell, if not for the battle of Quebec, we would have taken over the entire Canadian territory.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  101. Don’t forget that Jefferson was among the most militant POTUS this country ever had, and he had no hesitation about using force in order to achieve his foreign policy aims.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  102. Dmac – sure; but we were a strong power and Mexico in the 1820s-1850s was a very, very weak power.

    (Note: I’m contesting the claim that Mexico would have gotten the territory if we hadn’t been involved. Jefferson’s belligerance is somewhat irrelevant to that. :))

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  103. You bring up some valid points (as always), Aphrael. I think we both can agree that the vast majority of US citizens are quite ignorant about just who controlled the areas west of the Mississippi during that time period.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  104. aphrael…you forget the Russian settlements of trappers along the Northern California coast (there might have been some in Oregon also).

    AD - RtR/OS! (4228f5)

  105. AD – see comment #87; I mentioned them.

    The thing is … the Fort Ross colony was really, really, really weak. It was never self-sustaining food-wise (ironic, considering that it was in part expected to be a breadbasket for Alaska), it was too far from the rest of the Russian empire for effective military control.

    Once they’d killed all the otter in the area their economy collapsed; they ended up selling it to Sutter because it wasn’t viable.

    [I can’t find it, but I did research into this for a paper in a russian history course, eighteen years ago or so].

    aphrael (73ebe9)

  106. I think we both can agree that the vast majority of US citizens are quite ignorant about just who controlled the areas west of the Mississippi during that time period.

    That I have no quarrel with.

    One of my favorite trick-people-at-parties question is to ask people which US state capitol city has been a city for the longest period of time. People tend to answer with things like Boston, or Richmond.

    aphrael (73ebe9)

  107. Comment by aphrael — 8/19/2010 @ 10:04 am

    Sorry, didn’t see #87.
    And, pretty much every part of the Russian Empire was too far from St.Petersburg for effective control – sometimes even Moscow.

    AD - RtR/OS! (4228f5)

  108. “One of my favorite trick-people-at-parties question is to ask people which US state capitol city has been a city for the longest period of time.”

    Santa Fe.

    Not counting places where there were Indian or Hawaiian settlements before Europeans came along and swiped ’em.

    If Puerto Rico was a state, then it would be San Juan, which is quite a bit older than Santa Fe.

    Dave Surls (e81259)

  109. I see JEA is up to his usual display of ignorance.

    By the way, JEA, you seem to also be ignorant of the scope of the settlements of Spain in the Missouri/Mississippi drainage known as the Louisiana Purchase.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  110. “it’s highly doubtful that they would have been able to successfully prevent the British from taking control of the territory.

    Comment by aphrael ”

    Well, now the hypo is getting convoluted, in my opinion, but you’re got a good point. This is just speculation. What actually happened was ‘highly doubtful’ to many points of view, too, so there’s no telling.

    What I do know is that Mexico would have gained some territory, but for the United States. And it’s a blessing that this didn’t happen, IMO. The USA does not have a spotless record, but it is what it is, and what it is isn’t all that bad.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  111. I *still* find it mind-boggling when the “You Yanquis stole California and the southwest from Mexico” folk go on and on about wanting the area “returned” to the locals …

    Most of ’em are clueless about the history of the area, beyond what propaganda they have been fed …

    They don’t realise that the writ of Greater Tenochtitlan didn’t run in much if any of the US Southwest …

    They don’t realise that the alternative – post-Aztec Mexico – was Spanish Colonisation … and the locals were no happier with Spanish Colonisation than with any other colonisation …

    New Spain’s writ pretended to run throughout the southwest US, except that it really only had force where no-one challenged it … depending upon the year/decade, Russia, France, United Kingdom – they all had various attempts to settle on the West Coast … (grin) … about the only European power not trying to colonise North America was Portugal, due to the Tratado de Tordesilhas

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  112. I *still* find it mind-boggling when the “You Yanquis stole California and the southwest from Mexico” folk go on and on about wanting the area “returned” to the locals

    A bit of one-upmanship and nationalistic pride from south of the border, and from people who’ve relocated from there to here, would be understandable if Mexico were a truly wealthy, healthy, stable society. But it’s not. It’s a mess. And it has been a society of stereotypical Third-Worldish characteristics for generations.

    If Mexico had ruled California for the past few centuries, the migration of people between what is now the US-Mexico border would be two way instead of mainly one way.

    Mark (411533)

  113. Dave Surls – right. You would be amazed at how few people get that answer.

    One person insisted on Honolulu, and I suppose they have a point, although who knows when the Hawaiian village was founded?

    aphrael (9e8ccd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2961 secs.